Gorsuch Nomination a Home Run for Trump

Conservatives and Republicans appear to be in nearly universal agreement: In nominating Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, President Donald Trump has hit a home run. Immediately after Trump made the announcement Tuesday night from the White House, my email inbox was flooded with statements of support from conservative groups, Republican senators, conservative legal experts, and even the Knights of Columbus. (“We applaud the president’s nomination,” said Supreme Knight Carl Anderson, in case you were wondering.)

Who Is Neil Gorsuch?

The definitive profile of Gorsuch’s judicial record and philosophy comes from Ramesh Ponnuru at National Review. Ponnuru notes the similarities between Gorsuch and the man he is hoping to succeed, the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Here’s a sample from his brief, which was published a few hours before Gorsuch was officially announced:

A lawyer who clerked for both Justice Scalia and Judge Gorsuch sees parallels between the two men. Gorsuch is “a law-has-right-answers kind of guy, an originalist and a textualist,” he says. “He believes that the enterprise of law is real and worth doing and not just politics by other means.” A low-profile 2012 case, U.S. v. Games-Perez, illustrates how Gorsuch has applied these views. At issue was a federal law that authorizes prison terms for anyone who “knowingly violates” a ban on the possession of firearms by a convicted felon. A precedent in the Tenth Circuit held that a defendant who knew that he had a firearm could be sentenced under that provision even if he did not know that he was a convicted felon. (In the case Gorsuch was deciding, Miguel Games-Perez had previously taken a plea deal that the presiding judge had misdescribed as an alternative to being “convicted of a felony.”) Gorsuch participated in a panel of three of the circuit’s judges that affirmed the prison sentence. Gorsuch concurred in the result because he felt bound by precedent. At the same time, he made a powerful argument that the circuit’s precedent could not square with the text of the law. And when the case later came before the circuit, he urged it to reconsider that precedent. The case brought together several strands of Gorsuch’s thinking. It demonstrated his willingness, shared with Scalia, to overturn a criminal conviction when a proper reading of the law required it. He paid close attention to the text and grammar of the law while expressing skepticism about letting legislative history guide his decision. “Hidden intentions never trump expressed ones,” he wrote, adding an aside about “the difficulties of trying to say anything definitive about the intent of 535 legislators and the executive.” (Scalia was a foe of the judicial consideration of legislative intent for similar reasons.) And it showed, as well, his understanding that a judge must follow his duty even when it leads somewhere he dislikes. “He cared a lot about what the precedents are,” says the former clerk. “He was not interested in bending them or the usual tricks judges can use for getting around them if they don’t like them.”

And in his own brief remarks at the White House, Gorsuch paid tribute to Scalia.

“Justice Scalia was a lion of the law,” Gorsuch said. “Agree or disagree with him, all of his colleagues on the bench cherished his wisdom and his humor, and like them, I miss him.”

Praise for Gorsuch is coming from some unlikely sources, too. In a statement, former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal, an Obama appointee, called Gorsuch “one of the most thoughtful and brilliant judges to have served our nation over the last century.” Katyal said he “strongly” supports Gorsuch’s nomination and explains his endorsement further in a New York Times op-ed. And Jonathan Swan at Axios Media spoke to a classmate of Gorsuch’s at Harvard Law—Norm Eisen, the former ethics czar for Obama (all three are 1991 Harvard Law graduates). “It was a law school class crowded with luminaries, of all political persuasions,” Eisen told Swan. “But Neil was right up there. And he’s a very decent person, too.”

SCOTUS-Cast

Be sure to listen to our frequent contributor Adam White on the WEEKLY STANDARD podcast Tuesday night discussing Gorsuch. White called him the “best possible nominee” Trump could have selected. At different times, both Gorsuch and White clerked for D.C. circuit court judge David Sentelle, who Gorsuch cited in his Tuesday night remarks at the White House.

A Reset for Trump—Maybe

Politically, Trump may have purchased himself some goodwill from conservatives and members of his own party on Capitol Hill—a much-needed reset after a bumpy beginning to his administration. The Gorsuch nomination is, as my colleague John McCormack put it, the first time Trump has proven conservatives’ fears about him wrong on an issue of substance.

For Republicans in the Senate, particularly Mitch McConnell, Trump’s pick is a validation of their decision not to consider Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee for the Scalia seat, last year. Congressional Republicans have started to get frustrated by the Trump administration’s erratic approach to governance in its first two weeks in office. With full-throated support for Gorsuch from Trump critics like Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake, the president may find himself with a few more willing partners in the GOP conference when it comes time to move through Trump’s legislative agenda. Maybe.

A Conundrum for Democrats

So what’s the future for Gorsuch? Under current Senate rules, he’ll need 60 votes to override a filibuster—that means Republicans will need to hold the line and also get 8 Democrats to support ending debate. At the Tuesday afternoon press briefing, White House press secretary Sean Spicer boasted the then-unknown nominee could get up to nine Democrats on board. If that’s the case, all Gorsuch would need is a simple majority to confirm him.

Several of the Democrats’ most liberal members were out quickly with statements Tuesday night denouncing Republicans for not acting on Garland’s nomination and vowing to oppose Gorsuch by any means necessary (i.e. the filibuster). Minority leader Chuck Schumer is among them. (For more on this line of thinking, read David Leonhardt’s blueprint for Democratic opposition to Gorsuch in the New York Times.)

But others, notably assistant minority leader Dick Durbin, have already said they support an up-or-down vote on Gorsuch. That may give enough cover to red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2018 to vote to end any filibuster threat. Doing so will drive the progressive base of the Democratic party bonkers, but it may be the best strategy for preserving the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees if and when the next open seat belongs to a Democratic appointee. Democrats won’t want to have antagonized Republicans into finishing what Harry Reid starting in ridding the Senate of the filibuster until it really matters. But whether Democratic primary voters in those key 2018 Senate races forgive this kind of strategery is an open question.

Song of the Day

“Join Together,” by the Who

Related Content