During the second day of Judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) worked hard to pressure Gorsuch into conceding his political biases.
Over the course of his hearing, Gorsuch had declined to answer several questions by arguing that he tries to avoid politics so as not to discredit his rulings. Franken disputed that argument by rolling out examples of Gorsuch’s prior political involvement.
Gorsuch, for instance, volunteered for the George W. Bush campaign in 2004 and served in the president’s Justice Department. Franken even read from messages Gorsuch wrote at the time praising the campaign and indicating his interest in a job in the administration.
Challenging Gorsuch’s assertion that he tries “to avoid politics,” Franken remarked, “These messages establish that for a good deal of your prior career you didn’t avoid politics.”
“In light of” that evidence, Franken asked again, “Do you think Merrick Garland was treated fairly by the United States Senate?”
The implication, of course, is that because Franken has evidence that Gorsuch appeared to be a Republican in the past, he must necessarily be open about his politics now that he’s facing confirmation to the Supreme Court. That is simply not true.
Franken then took the conversation a step further, asking Gorsuch to comment on statements members of the Trump administration made at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month, as though Gorsuch was in some way responsible for Reince Preibus’ and Steve Bannon’s perceptions of him.
Gorsuch was nominated by a Republican president. Is Franken trying to prove that the GOP’s appreciation of his work disqualifies him? Should presidents no longer nominate justices?
Like Dick Durbin invoking a letter one of his former students sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Franken’s desperate questioning exhibited just how weak the case against Gorsuch is.
Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
