>> my democratic alex have done something today that is unprecedented in the history of the senate. unfortunately, it has brought us to this point. we need to restore the norms and traditions of the senate and get past this unprecedented partisan filibuster., 2013 therefore, i raise the point of order that the vote on closure under the precedent set on november 21, 2013, is a majority vote on all nominations. mr. mc 2013 did not apply to nominations to the supreme court. those nominations are considered under the plain language rule 22, the point of order is not sustained. >> i appeal the ruling. >> and, the senate preceded those votes advancing supreme court nominee, neil gorsuch to a final vote in the chamber expected tomorrow evening. as always will have that live on c-span2.

now, for about the next hour, some of the debate about the senate today. we plan to open up the phone lines to hear from you. >> the majority leader. >> maybe we have order? >> the senate will be in order. >> the majority whip. >> matter president, the senate has just restored itself into an almost unbroken tradition of never filibustering judges. we have actually restored the stats data's quote before the administration of president george w. bush, it was during that administration with some of our friends across the aisle, along with some of their liberal law professor allies dreamed up

away of blocking president george w bush's judicial nominees. those by suggesting that 60 votes was really the threshold for confirming judges rather than the constitutional requirement of the majority vote. it has been a long journey back to the normal functioning of the united states senate. it is amazing that it has taken a nominee like judge gorsuch to bring us back to where we wereos around 2001. we have been debating and discussing this nominee for a long time now, the opponents off judge gorsuch have tried time and time again to raise objections to this outstanding r nominee. a nomination that no one in the senate opposed ten years ago when he was confirmed to up plague

position on the tenth circuit court of appeals. they claimed he was not mainstream enough. they said this was a seed that should have gone to merrick garland. they have even accused him of plagiarism. all of these have no merit whatsoever and are desperate attempts to try to block this outstanding nominee. their claims are baseless. folks from across the political spectrum and newspapers from across the country urged her democratic colleagues to drop their pointless filibuster and allow an up or down vote.. it also came to light the type of man judge gorsuch is, a man of integrity, of strong independence, and other words the kind of person you would want to serve on the unitedt states supreme court. they even claim that judge gorsuch when out of his way to side with the big guy against

the little guy, ignoring the fact that during his ten yearss on the court of appeals where they said a multi- judge panels, that he was part of the majority decision 99% of the time. 97% of those cases were unanimous in multijudge panel decisions on the tenth circuit court of appeals. hardly a radical. impor it is a remarkable record ofun someone who uses his intellect, his education and training to build consensus on a multijudge court. exactly the skills that will bed important for him to use on the supreme court of the united states. was as i said ultimately today is a culmination of years of nominees obstruction by our democratic colleagues when it came to judicial nominees. when i came to the senate in 2003, the democrat strategy was

underway that struck lower court judicial nominees from the george w. bush administration. later, in 2013 when there is ait democrat in the white house and it suited them to do so, they decided to do away with the same tool they used and what nuclear6 lowering the threshold from 60 r circuit court nominees and district court nominees. it took a gain of 14, seven democrats and seven republicans to work background 2006ang mindframe. it was -- that agreement expired in 2013.

[inaudible] [inaudible]t [inaudible] going >> claimed the terms of senate necessity of going nuclear back then. j in fact, prior to 2013 the senate had confirmed more thanmo 200 of president obama's judicial nominees and rejected just two. more than 200 confirmed, tohe reject it. that hardly rises to the level of extreme obstruction or partisanship. that is a 99% confirmation rate for president obama. so, let's make it clear just how this began. it started with democratic obstruction under a republican administration in 2001, it has been continuing under new republican administration in

2017. q so, we really have come full circle to restore the status quo before 2001 when her democratic friends started down this path.c president trump has, by all accounts, selected a judge with impeccable qualifications and heist integrity. not one of our democratic colleagues has been able to offer a credible argument against him. rep that's why several of the democratic colleagues have crossed the aisle to join us. i think them for that. i think moore would join if they did not fear which a fusion from the radicals in their own political party. today, republicans in the chamber following through withth what we said we would do. we would let the american people decide who would select the next supreme court nominee and then vote to confirm that nominee. the american people on november the eighth selected president

trump and president trump nominated judge neil gorsuch. tomorrow we will confirm that nominee. >> i of the floor. >> mr. president. >> the senator from colorado. l mr. president. over the next several hours will have the final opportunity to do debate to the confirmation of supreme court justice nominee, neil gorsuch. this is been a lengthy process this week. we have heard from senators on both sides of the aisle come to the floor and talked about their support or opposition to judge gorsuch nomination to the supreme court. i've had several opportunities over the past weeks, months, to personally visit and speak with judge gore said to have no from colorado.

the opportunity to listen to my colleagues adjust the chamber. too much of senate confirmation hearings and the judiciary committee that day after day seemed the confirmation hearingt proceeded.roud that we of course, we have gotten to know judge gorsuch over the past several years. we are proud that we have a colorado in nominated to the high score. he would be the second coloradog in to serve. the other would be justice byron weitz. and while judge gorsuch will never live up to that part of the supreme court legacy for colorado, we know that judge gorsuch as an avid outdoorsman, fly fisher, expert level skier, someone who understands public lands. having that expertise and experience on our nation's nt country well. it's important to understand that his roots are the rootsgeni that built the west. he hails from the state that is independent, takes great pride

in the libertarian streak, the love of the outdoors and recreational opportunities, understanding agriculture energy.tate. a state that has it all. from these complaints to the western slope, the great beauty of our state. he serves on the tenth circuitas court that is houston denver and represents 20% of the landmass of our state. his family, as i mentioned really does have the grit and determination who built the west. his grandfather, somebody whop worked in union station and grew up driving trolleys back in the time when timber was a trolley temporary his other grandfather was a physician, both of whomic had experts in their field. medicine, one grandfather helped found a law firm. a very prestigious firm.orsuch's but, judge gorsuch experience,

his high qualifications of academics that he brings to the court having received degrees from columbia, oxford and harvard as i mentioned previously the most important academic experience being the university of colorado where he ol time teaching it has helped him build what he is l today. that is a very mainstream jurists. an incredibly exceptional mind one of the brightest we have to offer, somebody is known as a feeder judge and who has the respect of the colorado legallor community. i have come to the floor multiple times and have talked about his qualifications. i have talked about the fact

that the people who know him best, not the people in washington d.c. but those who practice in front of his court in denver, those who know him personally colorado, here's what those individuals have said. bee they believe judge gorsuch deserves an up or down vote. of former governor of colorado believes he deserves an up or down vote, now we will have it. we voted for closure and will have a final debate on friday night. and a final vote on whether he should be confirmed. people like steve farber the culture of the democratic national convention in 2000 and colorado has talked about theor need to confirm judge gorsuch. so, the debate we had tuna is not whether he will have an up or down vote, he will come it's whether not we should confirm him and give him the yes vote. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of judge gorsuch as confirmation. p some of the arguments i've heard over the past several weeks on

the floor listening to the arguments on the floor, it's w interesting that some of the arguments we here seem to be at odds with each other. presiding over the senate yesterday i heard people talkprs about how they don't think neil gorsuch will stand up to the president, they're concerned hee won't express the judiciary commands and will be someone wh stands up to the president of the united states. they cite comments or tweets the president has me and then failed to mention that the very time that one of the tweets was mentioned questioning thesuch i judiciary, that judge gorsuch in a meeting with her democratic sd colleagues actually said objections. h he objected to the statements the president had made. expressing his independence and talking about how it was demoralizing what he had heard.

showing very much independence. the second argument that you often hear from those who oppose this mainstream jurists is thatt they're afraid that he won't show enough deference to the president and then talk about the chevron doctrine and whether he is going to be willing to overturn the chevron doctrine. g i find the two arguments interesting. on one hand you have an argument saint were afraid he's not going to stand up to the president of states and then you have an argument that says you're afraid he's going to stand up to the president of the united states because that's what it does. it gives deference to the regulatory body. here's another irony. the administrator of the epage 1984 was neil gorsuch as mother.

the administrator of the epa, the first woman to serve as epa administrator who is subject of the chevron doctrine. not only is he willing to stand up to the president and the administrative state of the president, but he is willing to overturn a case that his own mother was subject to. aisle i've also heard comments from colleagues that judge gorsuch is not a mainstream jurists. this argument can be dealt with in a few ways. they're good statistics to refute these arguments. 97% is the number of times the number opinions he was a part of, 97% represents the time it was a unanimous decision. judge gorsuch did not serve just

with conservative appointed judges. he did not serve with only republican nominees, he served with republican and democrat nominees. appointments approved by the senate. 97% of the cases judge gorsuch rule and decided in unanimous decisions. the other statistic more revealing about whether or not he is a mainstream judge is that 99% is the amount of time he rolled in the majority of the court. made decisions and opinions with the majority of the court.hat her, yesterday who said judge course was never intended to be a mainstream nominee.fore if he was never intended to be a mainstream nominee do you think we would see a judge before's that has support from the 2008 democratic national convention

chairman. if he was never intended to be , mainstream nominee to think would have decisions by theem democratic governor of colorado to demand or ask for an up or down vote? if he was never intended to be a mainstream nominee do you think the president would have nominated someone who agreed 99% on the bench? colleagues who came from appointments given by republicans president and democrat presidents? the arguments over whether or ss not judge gorsuch as going to be with the little guy or spends too much time defending thew jug bigger, let me go back to the people who know judge gorsuch w the best. attor who practice in front of his court. here's a statement from a democrat attorney in the denver

post statement he issued a decision that most certainly focus on the little guy. yet, this right from the opposition in 2700 cases is, this is a person who has never defended a little guy. this is someone who practiced in front of him and his court, who absolutely believes he focused on the little guy. so, we have a judge who agrees with the majority of the court the most of the time, 97% of the time it is a unanimous decision. lawyers practicing in front of him believed he represents the little guy. we've heard from leading democrat voices in colorado who support him. the highest qualification rankings and ready. then what are wewe looking for e in a justice? maybe the argument should be about what were looking for in terms of ideology.phy and

we've seen his philosophy and ideology and what he's testified before the judiciary and what he stated past writings.decisi he's going to follow the law and take a decision where the law leads and that someone who'sbe going to take an opinion or decision where personal beliefs the that's the kind of justice we want. somebody who's not going to t decide policy preference from the bench of the supreme court, not someone who will take a look at a public opinion poll or focus group and make a decision, but someone who ruled by the law.er i've heard colleagues come to the floor and talk about their t given the l experiences with their givenor decisions to read without giving the law and just decide the facts of the case and they said how would you have decided this case. then they show the actual ruling in the case. some people believe that is not

the way would've decided because we don't feel that was a good outcome, we don't feel that was the right policy, it's not the job of a justice to put their thumb on the scale of policy, is the job of a justice to be a guardian of the constitution, to defend the constitution tono follow the law and decide cases based on the law, not of feelings, preference politics polls, we have a justice who said judge nominated for justice who is said that a judge who believes or agrees with every opinion they should is probably a bad judge. his paraphrasing other judges injustice throughout history because he knows it's not his job to issue opinions or on

decisions or decide a case based on below republican or democrat or whether he was nominated by president trumper president obama or president bush. his job to look at the law only policy decisions to the legislative branch. that's what we have to do. that is what judge gore suggests that he will do. these arguments do not hold water.cticed he's not looking out for the interest of our citizens, clearly he is.agues tha democrats who practice before my court said so. the argument he won't stand up in front of the trump administration, we know he will because he said it in front of our democrat colleagues. w he said he rejected attacks on the court. we also know that when it comes to the chevron doctrine which seems to be sacred grounds now, there's an ironic argument

taking place because you want someone who will stand up to ths administration but you'ret concerned he's interested or concerned that we've taken the chevron deference to far. which is it? jenna judge will stand up for the administration or judge who is not? it sounds like the arguments are trying to have it both ways. at the bottom line we know that judge gorsuch to be a person who is eminently qualified, a mainstream jurists, he has the respect and admiration of judges around the country, the admiration and respect of fellow jurists and legal professionals run colorado and we know he will make this country proud and he will make colorado proud as he receives his confirmation to the nation's highest court.

th i hope as we spend these hours debating we can realize the senate should operate in a bipartisan fashion, that we m should confirm judges that are clearly mainstream. i yield the floor. >> the senator from colorado. >> i have several requests for committees to meet to have the approval of the majority leader. >> without objection, duly noted. >> the senator from delaware. >> today is a day when many senators are speaking about judge gorsuch on the supreme court. as i think many know in the last week the judiciary committeeou hearings and other settings i have announced i will vote against judge gorsuch on the final vote tomorrow.

i believe i have made my reasons clear. i have thoroughly reviewed and considered his record and working since within american jurisprudence. i have no second thoughts about my decision. as i look around as to what has happened on the senate floor, i am sick with regret. i rise now to speak in defense of the senate. the senate has been held by many, including her nominated to the supreme court, judge gorsuch as the world's greatest liberty body.ha yet, today i think will marble robert byrd and reality. the late senator who served in his chamber for 51 years would famously remind new senators that in war and peace the senate has been the sheer refuge and protected of the rights of the states and of the political minority. of course senator burke was the longest-serving senator and i

grabbed was senator joe biden. a veteran of this body. left his ranks only to descend to the vice presidency and spend eight more years as the presiding officer. . . democratic administrations with whomever is willing to roll up their sleeves and get to work for the american people. and i know my colleagues share in this foundational commitment to serve our constituents and country. but as i look around at what just happened on this floor with too little discussion of its lasting consequences and too little visible concern or even emotion, i must ask the question where are we headed? you can't see it but around this chamber are white marble statutes, busts of former presiding officers, of former vice presidents of the united states. they are in the halls outside

this chamber. they are at the upper level of >> >> be when he delivered hisla farewell address in the senate the last day of office as the presiding officer he said it must not be forgotten the rules governing the is by year deepen human experience results of tireless effortes to be stable and secure the rights and liberties of sen those achieved through conflict this senate wisely affixes its own power those who clamor against the

senate in a moment of procedure to say they know not what they do with this chamber alone there are two essentials while legislation is good government and debate. exactly that those rules assaults and today but under assault for a long time. in recent days have reachedyi out to my republican and democratic colleagues to see if there was some way we could reach a reliable consensus agreement to safeguard these values and avoid the events of today and tomorrow i wanted to chart a course moving forward on a bipartisan basis.

i think for us to get to any constructive conversation moving forward requires the role that each of us have placed whether a few years or decades to bring us to w this point i for one have, over time to change the rules for the lower court nominations for of course, they could give an entire speech on the instruction that led us to that point and document the republican and democratic deeds and misdeeds and then decades before that as my colleagues have demonstrated h with the judiciary committeest deliberation the record of grievance of the congressmen

of decades past. and with this congress inongres those ahead and that went to work together to find ways to strengthen that i worked to try to find a solution.n that we would be the bipartisan consultation with the 60 vote margin. among many this consensus was met with hostility. again

back, thousands of constituents called my office building my support to filibuster some even urged me to stop talking about any sort of deal. that there could be conversations. there were senators on both sides of the aisle who told me of the agreement based on trust and they do not trust each other anymore so that disrespect and treatment of judge garland and over judge course it i could understand. a good and honorable and capable nominee to the

supreme court. both by last point that senators of both sides said he could not find a durable compromise if we cannot trust each other but we can address this morning i gave an address of the brookings institution in with the endurance of our republic to determine a bipartisan effort. and then the absence of trust so without trust we will not rebuild.so i really likes to point the

finger at the other sideund. because there is abundant blame to go around. when justice ginsberg luscious confirm 96 / three. and then to see a clear trend. in 42 senators voted against justice so the dough -- 3 justice alito. but more than 30 republican senators opposed each won only nine republicans opposed in 2020 only five joe did -- voted for justice kagan. but of course, we have the first supreme court nominee

in history to be denied a vote and a hearing and judge gorsuch first to be the f object of a filibuster. we did not get here overnight we have ben increasingly polarized to face those very real challenges facing the nation although i was blessed to be joint from both parties me were not successful wish to had engaged sooner and more forcefully and wish had been clear to seek a result it doesn't mean that i willha stop. a trying to fix the damage done and i ask my colleagues

if you know, what i have done today and what past mistakes can each of us own up to? and what more can they do to move forward? are. but at the end of the day hear we are. and then we have all let them down today.nts to >> i commit to working with anyone to strengthen that

which so many have fought. it is all predecessors would have wanted.to >> the senator from georgia.t >> will be brief but i willan anyway and just to pause for one second thing to remember of the senate with the kindness they have extended to me with my entry and recovery because of the support of the night and states senate i am grateful for that and allowing that to take place thank you very much. no matter your politics or partisanship is a great m

institution made up of great people so to that end my friend from delaware made the great speech and not have the strength to stand as long as i would like to but we need to open our minds and hearts to no one is regardless of party or partisanship. a i have seen more than anybody walleye have been recovering i have seen the real thing. but the way he presented himself and allowing the hearing to go forward and then the nominee for the supreme court justice. majorit issues on simple majority

not with the united states senate from the majority rule is a great philosophy if four is the majority than three is zero but you need to listen to the other side. for the rest of them still r count other issues are they are partisan or the general legislation or secretaries or whenever they maybe as a complement to our founding fathers to later be the mob rule or majority rule or the slave rule for passions overrule common sense andrs

then building those trees. >> guest: to do to take part of this debate that is what it is all about summered on the line to cause as day resurrection which way to go into the future direction in this day dignified body to use that o bicameral part of legislation that is what i believe so to all members i h compliment them on with the had to say just as gorsuch times so proud as somebodyo like that and to be a partin

of it and think the members of the united states senate. >>. >> thanks for yielding. s tendon means a law to have him back home in the senate. >> i don't want to turn this into a bouquet tossing contest it is clear senators of both sides of the ilo very, very pleased to see our friend from georgia backim today we're wishing him good health and godspeed and we l look forward to liflandav complete recovery. we are glad to have you here. we're also pleased senator

koontz is of the of four because watching and he has conducted himself that would make all of us repeatedly trying to bring both sides to get their finding common ground on the importance of legislation with that gridlock of what it is all about with the mainstream politics. i appreciate that. >> so one of the most sacred and important constitutional one duties details of thef

supreme court debates stretched through generations to shape of government into the future to have a profound impact prolong this governing statute over the particulars over the law there are several issues were better irrelevant to this nominee and intend to discuss those issues shortly but whether

one supports judge gorsuch fed job would have been easier with this testimony before the judiciary committee with a rigid and far right philosophy of the so-called original was some. that our right as a people are contained with then and linked to the founding document. but that is incorrect with average alyssum becomes a

cover for protecting the fortunate over individuals and power over every other american. that with that political agenda to masquerade as of philosophy with the sole intent is reserving power those rights are reserved for the people. fin is actually a document the full scope of the fundamental rights cannot be limited by the specific terms elsewhere provided in

the constitution the that is written into the bill of rights the ninth amendment says the enumeration of the constitution shall not be construed to disparage others james madison founder so significant was outspoken in of the dangermers wer contemplated by the framers and so the founding document made clear that the rights were not enumerated by the constitution but retained by the people individual liberties from personal privacy and a woman's right

to vote in the choice of contraception and abortion, interracial marriage, sex marriagethe marriage, equal protection of the law, and these liberties and the bill of rights fundamental to a free people of the darker h. to recognize the truth meaning of the words all men are created equal. but if progress has then painfully slow. did is fraught with the original san.

with the accommodation. with those individual rights unrecognizable unprotected by the courts they ruled in favor of the powerful and against the disadvantaged and disenfranchised so with of constitution. nowhere does express they deny women the right to vote but those ruling in 1875 against of good minor the government was not expressly given the right to go to the japanese defense but the supreme court allowed thatl there is no constitutional basis for those a different ethnicities the right to marry but on those issuess w

the judges were wrong the supreme court justices willin wrong in economic and powers that the court has defended sleepovers denied the franchise with other discrimination to routine the elevate the power of the state of individual liberty to and the defense of those rulings to the text of the constitution is just plain wrong. look more closely at women's voting rights.. the supreme court found women did not have the right to vote because it was not expressly stated anywhere ines the constitution with a unanimous decision to have the absurd position the

document predicated organized by a doting to protect the right to vote with that bankruptcy the long legal tradition is sustained by its defense and with those courses but did did not create menu right with a long overdue fix made necessary by an originalist court. oppre and to lou disenfranchisesountry it is because hour of wonderful country can correct in its wrongs but with the amendment that followed with that brown

decision to do so more recently his darkly the fundamental rights and the birdies cayuse the word recognition intentionally se. went there are no new rights the they are inalienable. so those with that principle to respect the individual rights but that is not the viewpoint taken by many so-called the regionalist this looks in my view like that judicial philosophy

that trampled on the right side of american in the days passed.ory with rte. history has led many americans to be marginal i stored disenfranchised by the state. unfortunately afterly listening very carefully and to judge gorsuch looking at his writings and specifically to talk about my home state i have no faith in judge gorsuch would be any different from the philosophy that mentioned that has left so many americans marginalized then our country not only as a long record of action in the courtroom but has demonstrated the hostility toward the right of individuals to make decisions of their own liveser

and families about interference from the state and in one troubling instance went so far to offer a book death with dignity historically has been left to the states and with those ballot measuresures a that has been a place nearly 20 years. the supreme court tells us gaullist vs. oregon but in his own words the will of many oregonians unquestioned. nothing in the constitution gives the federal government back the power did not a thean

right to make basic choices about the end of their lives nothing in the constitution that gives the power to deny people in my state to make those emotional difficult and wrenching decisions it is a private matter between individuals to force regulations through the backdoor by going after doctors with their ability that is obvious over the line federal infringement. there will be those but nothing that this judge said

he will lead respected death with dignity so for her -- to intruder on a private choice. in there it is more. so as i listened to this debate and the ticket the the number of comments to espouse the views that concern me so much what we

of common to feel strongly about was what i call a secret law.ligenc

forgot one to know what people know what we talk about operations and methods coa and the tactics used by courageous men and women who are protecting us to go in harm's way they always have to be secret. their classified and a half to beat because if they got out americans could die. those who do all that wonderful work and possibly more. but the law and public policy ought to be transparent the american people need to know about that because that is how we

make informed decisions in our wonderful system of government boaters have given enough information to make the traces operation secret but the law and political philosophy has to be public and judge gorsuchas a senior attorney in the department of justice and as i indicated with those operations of the projected to trust government that a legal system can survive the when the law says one thing but the government or secret court says it is another.s

back what prevents the of public from knowing of the fundamental rights are infringed and secret law keeps congress in the dark. congress barring rebellion is the only one of a free people were against day executive judicial alliance of secrecy and it makes some mockery of the old knicks is fundamentally corrosive to the rule of law in americation and as a learned during the confirmation hearing judge gorsuch was a supporter of secret lies. t

in 2005 conducting a secretog torture program and the department of justice office oa secretly the torture techniques such as water boarding with the prohibition of torture in the constitution. this was extraordinary analysis and entirely inconsistent howled of public would read the law or the constitution. so that our distinguished colleague from arizona arizona, senator mccain after having been subjected to the defense of our country and senator mccain

giving foley of himself that the government had to find a way out of the problem. but the mccain off prohibits degrading treatment and the context of which it was passed with the every american to understand the decision made by their elected officials was to limit the power of government but judge gorsuch and employee of the bush and ministration has a solutionpinin the author of the justice department about the presidential signing statement was that would transform the mckean what wrotew

into the endorsement of torture that would prevent cruel treatment to codify existing interrogation policies. in other words, john mccain, his law of the past 90 / nine in the united states senate is somehow did just the opposite. the issue came up in the nomination hearing. lawye judge gorsuch nomination explanation he was helping a client of the administration for i have to say mr. president there is one thing we have learned just following orders defense has gone on for far too long ins the city.ated

it is a feeble excuse unbecoming of a judge a nominated to the highest court in the land to justify a fell law to sell was falling divisive council that is making a choice to do wrong the mccain amendment did not greenlight torture. talk if anybody heard john mccain talk about this issue talks about his horrifying personal experience they know certainly it could not havehe been his intent to write thed bill and any lawyer especially secrecy advising the government has an obligation to the law and to

the constitution judge gorsuch failure to recognize that principle and his choice to do wrong in my view disqualifies him from this - - receipt from a united states court. that is not the only illegalhe program but after the warrantless wiretapping he helped to prepare testimony for the attorney general and they are invested in the president and added thated away cannot be legislated awayov from other coequal branches of the government if that was the case that no action taken in this area by the elected representatives of the people has any weight before intelligence surveillance act would be just advisory.

faisal which we will debate the issue be little more and that ended double collection of phone records might as well never have been signed into law. voting to confirm judge gorsuch calls into question any commitment in response to a question during the nomination hearing judge course it said he did not believe the attorney general's testimony was only acting as described or as a speechwriter so absolves himself of responsibility for his actions. again it is wrong to use

this as an excuse. to the assertions of presidential authority to override congressional limits rips at the fabric of the rule of law. he chose to give up and go to work every day for individuals to violate the law, judge gorsuch has the power to say no and would not make that choice collies the senate is calling to confirm in individual for a lifetime position on thers supreme court over his legal - career as we go into this debate behalf to reflect on the history of the court of secret illegal and

unconstitutional program is unacceptable to have a place on the supreme court i am reminded in the senate again and again how the supreme court has reversed tim -- rubber-stamp the executive and legislature over the years that is the record the supreme court reversed giving the excesses rather than protecting individual liberties of the american people. my view it is our job as senators to ensure the supreme court does not repeat the disenfranchisement to deny equal protection of the law to

and i believe the only way to prevent this abuse is to appoint judges the recognizen against any attempt to infringe on our unalienable rights. live bottom line is whether judge gorsuch recognizes the rights are reserved for the people no respect to individual rights are liberties to allow forure, tha secret law that favors the powerful over the powerless to determine the course of their own lives and unfortunately we have l learned