On the second day of hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary concerning his nomination to the Supreme Court, Gorsuch was asked by California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the panel’s ranking Democrat, if he could name a case in which he sided with workers against powerful constituencies. Committee Democrats have argued Gorsuch consistently rules in favor of corporate interests over and against needy plaintiffs.
To Feinstein's Effort To Trap Him
“I’m just looking for something that would indicate that you would give a worker a fair shot,” the senator said. “Maybe it’s in your background somewhere, but I would like to have you respond to it any way that you can.”
“I’ll name a bunch of [cases] right now,” Gorsuch replied. “Ute 5 and 6, Fletcher, the Rocky Flats case, which vindicated the rights of people who had been subject to pollution by large companies in Colorado. I would point you the magnesium case, a similar pollution case in the Salt Lake City area.”
He went on to name a number of other cases in which he ruled in favor of sympathetic plaintiffs, including a pregnancy discrimination case and sexual harassment cases, among others.
Blog Author's Comments: Judge Neil Gorsuch is an extremely bright man and he is well prepared for these hearings. But, we also have to consider that the leftists at the hearings are not particularly intelligent career politicians that he is dealing with. The Democrats are identifying themselves as petulant children who are incapable of understanding how silly they are. They are simply making the case that conservatives care far more about the needs of the middle class than any democrat. Feinstein was looking for a gun fight. She didn't realize that she was unarmed.
If Senator Feinstein clearly wanted to trip up Gorsuch she needs to take a few lessons from Trey Gowdy. One of the first rules they teach you in law school is "There is no Perry Mason moment. Never ask a question of a witness on the stand that you do not already know the answer to!" Feinstein looked like a rank amateur. The Republicans put forth nominees like Gorsuch or Tillerson and Mattis who are so much more intelligent than the enemy that is attempting to stop them. The best part of Gorsuch's answer to Feinstein was the implied but unsaid message that Feinstein should have been ready, had the research done, and been familiar with Gorsuch's case record before this point in the process. She looked badly prepared for this hearing.
SCOTUS nominees still require 60 votes to beat a filibuster; but, if the Democrats attempt a filibuster the GOP should and will definitely use the 'Nuclear Option', (we thank you Harry Reid) to confirm Judge Gorsuch, and move on to the many other matters President Trump wants to deal with. However for Gorsuch the general analysis is that for political reasons the Democrats won't filibuster, but they'll do everything they can to filibuster the next nominee. Hopefully at least two other spots open up on the bench during Trump's first term. We seriously dodged a bullet by not electing Clinton. That would have resulted in a leftist Supreme Court for at least a generation, and given demographics and excessive immigration, probably forever, meaning the end of this Republic as founded.
Remember - "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats." - PJ O'Rourke
Member Of Firm Linked To Russian 'Investors'
In The MSM Is Never Ending