i am a democrat but i loved reagan. reagan got everybody together. every other president follows the decorum. they stood up, you could respect them. i don't think there's one child in this country that respects donald trump. >> host: thank you for calling lenny. thanks to all of our callers. the senate will be back and we will have more coverage here on c-span2 and a final confirmation vote for judge neil gorsuch the associate justice on the supreme court is expected at 11:30 a.m. eastern time again live on c-span2 and c-span.org and on the free c-span radio app. now on c-span2 we will show you more today's debate in the senate after that series of votes after changing the rules and moving on to the final 30 hours of debate on judge neil

gorsuch's nomination.he >> mr. president as we finish the vote just hours ago, i coulr not help but notice a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle high-fiving each other.er that image stays with me as i stand here now. it saddens me. there is no cause for celebration in what happened in the senate just hours ago.hould no one should sleep well tonight no one should underestimate thee magnitude of what happened here. the damage was done to our democracy, two in fact two instances that are the pillars

of our democracy, the unitede states supreme court and the senate itself. today is one of my saddest in the senate, sattar than anything is the damage that's been caused to the supreme court by eroding and undermining trust and respect for an institution that has power only because of its credibility with the american people. it has no armies or police forco all it really has is the confidence and respect of the american people and today raw political power has been exercised to break the rules and norms of this body so that a

nominee could be confirmed. and the only way that he could be confirmed was in fact to wreck the rules. a nuclear option that will have enduring fallout and rippling repercussions perhaps for years to come.lf for myself, i will say unequivocally that i hope we will work together on issues where we have common ground and where we can reach common solutions on infrastructure, on tax reform, on immigration issues. no one should make light of the potential fallout as there is in any nuclear explosion from this

action today. the senate has broken with decades of live partisan practice when it comes to the united states supreme court. the practice and tradition was that presidents president of either party would consult with members of both parties before making a nomination so as to assure a mainstream nominee. tht and that nominee would he then mainstream even before his or her selection so that there was some modicum so that respect for this body as well as the cord would be preserved. my fear is the contagion of partisanship will in fact the core system as a whole, all of

the nomination to the lower court as well as the appellate courts. we my hope is that we can avoid that truly could cataclysmic outcome. a nuclear explosion in some ways even more deafening and damagind than would be the one used are today. because our courts are then bulwark on our democracy and an attack on our courts are an attack on the only check we have against churning and democratic erosion and that is why the nonpartisanship of our courts are so important. the supreme court of all of our courts should be above politics and in fact that is why the 60 vote rule for the supreme court

was so important. the supreme court is nine justices appointed for life to the highest court in the land and in some ways an anachronism. unaccountable, unelected, sitting for life with the power to strike down actions of elected representatives and an elected executive by issuing words on paper. without the direct means to enforce them to funding only ona credibility from the american people. to approve nominees by a razor thin majority is a disservice to the court and to our democracy. the supreme court justices do more than just follow the law. they have to resolve conflicts in the law and differences among

the lower court where they is unabl in the statutes where there is lack of clarity where this body is unable to reach consensus and an effects decide to agree to the extent it can and leave some questions to administrative enti agencies which rightly are entitled to respect if they implement the law. confidence and trust are have essential and we have undermined it today. our republican colleagues have greatly damaged it by the actions taken today. now i urge my colleagues to mainst believe he is out of the mainstream, because he has failed to answer questions about whether he agreed with c established core precedence

essential to rights and privacy and equality under the law,phy because he has a judicial philosophy that would include substitute justices that courts for administrative agencies and abandoning the chevron doctrine and because he favored in many of his actions opinions like the interest of corporations over individual rights. we have debated the merits of this nominee and i believe that the invasion of questions that i have put to him repeatedly and others as well leave us with the inescapable conclusion that he passed the trump test, that he is not a neutral color of balls and strikes, that he is in factn

in acolyte of their right-wing group and that he would carry out not only the trump witnessue test to strike down gun violence provisions but also other unknown decisions that would implement that far right conservative agenda. we can debate whether that view is right or wrong but today sadness for myself and it is one of my saddest in the senate. it goes more to the institution that has been demeaned and degraded.at the united states senate and the supreme court. my hope is that maybe it will be a turning point. maybe we can reconstruct the sense of bipartisanship that

existed for so many years. many of my colleagues on the other side have expressed their misgivings about today but the instruction of merit garland's nomination is one of my colleagues put it filibuster of all filibusters, was another step in the continuing progression culminating in today's actions. it very much does -- betrays the spirit and values of bipartisan selection of a supreme court nominee because the highest court in the land is different. i had the extraordinary honor to clerk for a justice of the united states supreme court by a republican president richard nixon. he grew as a justice and

surprise a lot of people. he no doubt surprise the president who appointed him and that is what happened to reallye extraordinary men and women who served on our courts as well as in the united states senate. they grow in the job and choosing a united states supreme court justice is one of the most solemn and important that a president has and confirming heh or him as one of the most important tasks we have in this body. even at the most difficult and contentious times as i served as a law clerk and as i have litigated since been for several decades i have never doubted that judges would work in good faith to uphold the rule of law,

whether they ruled my way or not i believed that they were working to try to be above partisan politics and uphold the rule of law and do the right thing to follow the law that the supreme court does more than follow, it leads. today's vote is a significant challenge to that principle and perhaps the most difficult that we have seen in recent history. it threatens exact profoundhe aa damage on confidence and trust in c court and perhaps in courts overall and that is a danger for all of us. in my view when the history of this time is written there will be two heroes.

the free press who have uncovered abuses and wrongdoings despite opposition from many powerful forces and our independent judiciary that has amer also their right to countless americans and many many areas of law. today's action threatens those two forces for institutions in our society. they undermine our rule. it would not have happened without a choice made by the wig republican leadership that they were willing to break the rules to achieve this result. i am determined to try to move forward in a positive way in protecting and enhancing our

court sitting on the resources they need to do their job and law enforcement the resources it needs to uphold the rule of law. we cannot hold the supreme court hostage to any ideology, and that is a lesson from today and from the past year that we should all heed. mr. president i will continue to talk about this topic because i believe that so profoundly important to our nation but are now i yield the floor and thank you. wri >> when they write the history of these times i'm sure when it comes to senate history there's going to be a chapter, a monumental event in the history of the senate not for the better

but for the worse. after we are all long dead andwh gone someone may be looking back and trying to figure out what happened and what motivated people. i'm going to tell you what has motivated me since i've been int the senate. an understanding that the job of a senator when it comes to advice and consent is not to replace my judgment for that of the president not to notify the election but to be a check and balance to make sure that the a- president of either party nominates someone who is qualified for the job and is cha capable from a character point of view of being a good judge of the solid has the intellect to carry out the duties of the supreme court justice. i expect that when president obama won the white house that he would pick judges that i would not have chosen based on

our different philosophy of liberal conservative jurisprudence, so this is what the former white house counsel in the obama administration saih about a leyna kagan who is now on the court. kagan is a progressive in the mold of obama himself. this is what vice president biden's chief of staff ronald plane said about a leyna kagan. elena kagan is clearly illegal progressive and comes from the side of the spectrum. i think that was an accurate description of her and sonia jue sotomayor who both are progressive judges that come from the progressive side of the judicial spectrum. both highly qualified and capable women who have a stellar legal record even though they had outcomes i did not agree with.

it was certainly the mainstream as judges at and i think he chose people that i would not have chosen but were really highly qualified. i was the only member of the judiciary committee on the republican side to vote for either one of ms. kagan orman ms. sotomayor because i use the standard that i thought was constitutionally sound.g i'm not telling any other senator what they should do. i'm just trying to explain what i do. the federalist papers number 76 written april the first, 1788 by them mr. hamilton said to a purpose require the cooperation of the senate? it would be an excellent check upon favoritism of the president who would attempt greatly toac prevent the appointment of unfit characters from state prejudice from family connection from personal attachment and from

popularity. from hamilton's point of view the check and balance against a crony and unqualified person soo someone who was not qualified for that job, someone they were supporting because they were close to the president someone their particular part of the state and would not be ferreted anybody else. in the advice and consent claust it's pretty clear i don't think the founding fathers had infy their mind that one party would nullify the election when the president of another party was chosen by the people and came to the supreme court confirmation because they chose somebody that did not agree with philosophically. s i voted for a leyna kagan and sonia sotomayor knowing it was a progressive judicial pool and ican p finest conservatives that any

republican president could have chosen and he is every bit as qualified as they were. his record is incredible. 10 and a half years on the bench , 2700 cases in one reversal. he received the highest rating of the american bar association and well-qualified to merit the committee's rating of well-qualified a supreme court nominee must be a prominent member of the legal profession with outstanding legal ability and an outstanding breadth of experience. it's reserved for those found to merit the committee strongestiv affirmative endorsement by unanimous vote on march 9 thein standing committee were to judg. gorsuch's his highest ranking of well-qualified just like they did for sonia sotomayor and

elena kagan. 2700 court decisions and one reversal, praise from all areas of the law left, right and middle, the aba 900 page described him as a thoughtful judge in a good person. i don't think anybody can come to the floor and say even though you may disagree with an outcome that judge gorsuch is notde qualified within any reasonable p standard to be chosen by president trump. he's every bit as qualified as the two obama appointments so clearly qualifications no longer matter like they used to. anthony scalia who justice,us judge gorsuch and hopefully soon will be just as gorsuch was confirmed 98-0.

ruth bader ginsburg, 96-3. i would argue that you could not find two more polar opposite people when it comes to philosophy than justice ginsburg and justice scalia and theyod became very dear friends butul nobody in their right mind would say there's not a difference in caro strom thurmond my predecessor, very conservative man from south carolina voted for ginsburg. clearly a conservative would not have chosen her and i can tell you that ted kennedy and other people on the progressive side of the aisle would not have voted for anthony scalia based on philosophy. something as happened in america from 1986 and 1993. the constitution hasn't changed. something has changed and i

think the politics of the moment have taken the founding fatherse concept, turned it upside down t that from the time scalia was put on the court ginsburg was put on the court everything is changed. i was here when the first effort to filibuster a judicial nomination was made in earnest. the first term of bush 43 there was a wholesale filibustering of circuit court nominees. president bush was part of the gang of 14 that broke the m filibuster. we lost a couple of nominees that we did move forward and we said there would be no further filibuster of judges unlessth there extraordinary f circumstances. that allowed alito and roberts to go forward. v alito we had to get cloture vote and we got 78 votes. clarence thomas was probably thy

most controversial pick in my lifetime and if you can remember that hearing it was just front-page news every day and him on tv every night. not one democratic senator chose to filibuster him. he got an up-or-down vote and the past i think 52-48. they could have chosen to require cloture but they didn't so this is the first time in the history of the senate that you have a successful filibuster of a supreme court nominee. abe fortis was filibuster to the be the chief justice of the supreme court by almost an equal number of democrats and republicans because of ethical problems and he initially resign. we are making history today. the first successor -- successful filibuster in the united states senate to deny an up or down vote on a nominee to the supreme court.

it breaks my heart that we are here. i don't know what to do other than to change the rules to have some sense of fairness. i can't believe that judge gorsuch is not qualified by any reasonable standard. i voted for sotomayor and kagan. nobody even asked for a cloture vote. they went straight to the floor. one got 603 votes in the other got 68 votes and i don't know why we can't do with judge gorsuch what was done with sotomayor and kagan. we keep hearing about judge garland. judge garland is a fine man and would have been a very good supreme court justice. justice scalia died in that worry of 2016 after three primaries were already held. the nominating process was well on its way for picking the next

president so this was an election year. i remember what joe biden said the 92 the last year of bush 41's term when there was a suggestion that somebody might retire in the election year. he said the sickly if someone steps down i would highlyy recommend the president not name someone, not send a name up andn if he does push a name up as the senate consider not having and hearing for the nominee. it would be my pragmatic conclusion that once the season is underway action on the supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. the that's what vice president biden said when he was chairman of the senate judiciary committee and 92. that made sense. president trump put a list ofom names out that he would choose from if he became president which is historic.

part of the contest in 2016 was about the supreme court. i have no problem at all that once the campaign season is next afoot the next president pick and that's no slam on judge garland. .. the campaign season had started in 2008. i say that knowing that it was senator reid who chose to change the rules in 2013 which broke the gang of 14's agreement in part. and here's what harry reid said in 2005. the duties of the united states senate are set forth i part.e are set forth i here's what harry reid said in 2005. to the duties of united statesia senator set forth in the constitution of the united states, nowhere in that document

it is safe they have to give the presidential nominee about. all i can say, is that in the 100 year history of the senate w from the day going backwardsar there is but one person put on pa the court when the president was of one party in the senate was held by the other party and a vacancy occurred in the last year of the presidential term. we have done nothing to justify judge gorsuch to be treated the way he has been treated. his been treated badly. here's what nancy pelosi said. if you drink water, eat food or interact with courses is a very bad decision. all i can say is, judge gorsuch does not deserve that. that is a political statement ge out of sync with reality of whoa the man is in the life he has led. it is that attitude that has

gotten us here today. i can also say there's blame on my side too. nobody has clean hands completely on this. w i can remember when justice soto meyer was nominated. she made a speech that the white man would have a hard time understanding what life is like for minorities. those taken to believe that she somehow did not be fair to white men. thousands speech she gave, provocative but i never believee it was an indication that she was somehow prejudiced against white men. the reason i concluded that is that everybody who is known hurt included white men said she was a wonderful lady. i remember elena kagan, the attack on our side was that she joined with the administrationon of harvard to keep the rotc unit off campus. th somehow that made her unpatriotic. well, my view was that i was the position of a very liberal school called harvard unknown

could ever convince me that elena kagan was unpatriotic. she seemed to be a very nice, highly qualified lady in that decision by harvard cannot be taken to the extreme of saying that she is not fit to sai servn the court. i was able to look beyond the charges of these two ladies on our side to understand who they in the when you look at people who know these judges the best they canso tell you the most accurate said information. in the case of kagan asada moyer there are people left and right that said their well-qualified, fine ladies. the quote was side about judge gorsuch in the ada report. in a credible live here we're as a matter fact, was supreme court nominations in the country, t large percentage were done basec

on the voice vote. it's only modern times and we have got the political contest of the court.to i can say this, that while i have been here i've tried to be fair the best i know how to be. i voted for everybody i thought mind i said to judge garland, let the next president decide. the time i said that in march 2016 i had no doubt that donald trump would lose. that hillary clinton was would pick someone more liberal than garland. it made sense to me in that stage of the process to let the next president pick. the fact that we are filibustering this man says a lot about the political moment.t this were a controversial character might understand it gt better. when you look back and try to figure out what we did and how we got here, i can say this.

we took one of the best people that president trump had nominated, somebody i would've and h president i think paul right, mike pence, any of us would've chosen neil gorsuch. what change the rules, it will have an effect on the judiciary, it will be a good one because judges will be selected by single majority no requirement to reach across the aisle which mean the judges are more ideological. when you have to go over there and get a few votes or they have to come over here get a few votes you have to water down some of your choices in the most extreme ideological picso available to a party or they're not going to be a make it through. now, they will.en what you will see overtime is

that the most ideological people in the senate are going to have a lot to say about who is chosen by the president. so, it will change the nature of the judiciary.en into the senate itself, every senate seat now becomes referendum of the supreme court. so when we have a contest of the senate seat, is not just about the senate, it's about the seed affected the outcome of the court because all you need is a simple majority. whether or not it leads to changing the legislative filibuster which would be the end of the senate, i don't know. but i don't think it helps.ay there'll be a majority around here monday, the president of the same party, control of the house, they'll get frustrated because the other side won't let them do everything they want toa do there'll be tempted to go down this road of doing away with the 60 vote requirement to pass a bill, not to appoint a judge. and that will be the end of the senate. we had more me that more likely

by doing this. it was more likely to thousand 13, i hope i'm wrong, but i think we have set in motion the eventual demise of the senate. one thing i can't say enough optimistic that while our vote could change the rules for this judicial nomination, i will never vote to change the rules for legislation are the reason i am voting to change the rules as i do not know what i go home to change people why soto meyer and kagan got on the court and gorsuch couldn't. why president obama was able to pick two people who are highly h qualified and trump was unable to pick one person highly qualified. you just can't have it where once i get there judges and the so to rectify that wrong will have to change the rules. not a good day. i was hoping it would never come, but it has.

and to the extent that i have been part of the problem, i apologize to the teacher. heat f but, i think at least in my own mind i tried to do the right thing is i have saw. i took a lot of heat for voting for their judges at the time there is a lot of hate on our side. i'm glad i did. not that i'm not partisan, easily can be. i just think the history is going down a dark path and the senate is going down a dark path here. there'll be another 98 votes for scalia, 96 votes for ginsberg, and that is a shame. because, even though they may be different they have one thing in common. they're good people, highly qualified to sit on the court. i can understand why a liberal president would choose one and a conservative president which is another. sen but what we are doing today's basically said, we don't really care about election results anymore in the senate.

mr. ac >> the senator from louisiana. >> thank you. >> senator graham, my fellow senators, our constituents in gn the gallery, a lot of what has s gone on today mr. president, itl may seem very complicated. we have heard a lot of terms being drawn around, closure, the nuclear option, but really the question that we are faced with today in the united states senate was very simple. it continues to be very simple and straightforward in my judgment.. should we have an up or down vote on the nomination of judge neil gorsuch to be an associate justice of the united states supreme court.

and the senate ordered today to do that. i think it is very important for the american judicial system, and for the american system of democracy that the united states senate be allowed to vote on george gorsuch as nomination to the united states supreme court. it wasn't enough to not only vote on a motion to end the debate. we also needed to be allowed to vote on the actual nomination, yes, or no. unfortunately our friends on the democratic side of the aisle decided to filibuster in order to make it impossible for us to vote on this crucial nominee without modifying the rules of the united states senate. that is what we did earlier today. i don't know that anybody did il

happily, but certainly a majority of the united states senate believed the american people deserved an up or down vote. yes or no, stand up and be counted in front of god and country, do you want judge neil gorsuch to be on the supremen. court, or do you not. that vote is going to take place tomorrow afternoon. now, the constitution says the president of the united states and i'm quoting now, shall nominate and bind with the advice and consent of the senate supreme court,". i do not need to tell you mr. president that this is an extremely important part of our separation of powers. it is vital to protecting the integrity of the supreme court, the work that all of us to duchess members of the judiciary committee. every member vetting our

nominees and making sure they're qualified and independent as neil gorsuch is enormously important for the protection of liberty itself. let's not ever forget what we are protecting. we are protecting justice, and we are protecting liberty. we are not supposed to be protecting a certain point of view. we are not supposed to be protecting a certain policy. we are not supposed to be protecting a certain political party. i hope that tomorrow, when we finally get the opportunity to vote up or down on neil gorsuchj for membership on the greatest tribunal in the history ofsuth civilization in my judgment, the united states supreme court, that we will consider his nomination in light of how it

will affect our country, not our party. when we looked at his nomination from that perspective and leave the politics of the last few years unless your mer rearview mirror, think we can analyze his nomination with more clarity.e, "alexander hamilton" who i think most americans admire set in federalist number 78 that the court has neither forced nor will but merely judgment. merely judgment. i think that is what we areee looking for should be an anomaly of any court, but especially the united states supreme court. we are not looking for somebody with a certain policy preferen preference. were not looking for people with ideas of how the law can beit'st improved.

because the role of a judge is not to make law. it is to interpret the laws made by the legislative body is best the judge can understand it. that is why mr. president, we need someone like neil gorsuch with good judgment. neil gorsuch, i've set on judiciary and spent 20 or 4040 hours with him were people who know him well with their testimony.d i have read his opinions. as far as i'm concerned, he is as good as it gets. i cannot imagine the president trump could have picked better.e is a thoroughbred, is a legal rockstar, if you read his opinion he is painstaking in his application of the law to the facts. he writes beautifully. his communication skills are amazing.oncise. because analysis and analytical

rigor is clear, concise. his decisions are wise and disciplined. and he is faithful to the law. he is an intellectual not an ideologue. he is a judge. not a politician. he is a whip smart, clear writing, strict constitutionalists, snow skiing, flyfishing, fourth-generation from colorado. i think he will also every person in our country well is a member of the supreme court.r. that's why i'm supporting him. let me say one final thing. i do not think there is any vote that will be more important than the boat we will take tomorrow on the president's nomination to

the united states supreme court. i want to choose my words carefully.t that' not a single solitary vote is more important than the vote will take tomorrow.he but that is not to say there are not other important issues before this body. that's why it is so important today to decide to vote up or down on judge gorsuch so we can move on to those other importand issues. the fact of the matter is on the issues i am talking about our jobs, jobs, jobs, designing thed healthcare delivery system that looks like somebody designed it on purpose, which our acting president has worked so hard on, infrastructure, elementary andrk secondary education, a skilled workforce, and i could go on. t

there is an enormous amount of pain in america today. there are too many americans who are not participating in the great wealth of america. not economically, not socially, not culturally, and not spiritually. we have been elected in then congress to do something about that. i have talked to people in my state every day and i know you do to, the people in louisianae. are fun-loving, god-fearing and playing talking. this is what they tell me.s. they tell me, kennedy, this country was founded by jesus. but sometimes i think it's being run by idiots. and they tell me, mr. president, they say we look around our country today and here's what we see.

we see too many on deserving, i want to emphasize o on deservin, we see too many undeserving people at the top getting bailouts. we see too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts. they say, we are in the middle. we are just a quit the bill. we cannot pay it anymore because our health insurance has gone up in our kids tuition has gone up and our taxes have gone up, but i tell you what has not gone up they say to me. our income. and these are real people with real problems, they sent all ofe us here because they are realhi' mad and they expect us to do something about it. the sad truth is that our children's generation is at risk of becoming the first in, bec

america, unless his body does something, to be worse off than their parents. because in our country today, for too many americans it is harder than ever to get ahead. that is why so many americans ty feel stuck. they feel like the hope and change they were promised has become declined and uncertain. they are looking to us, mr. president, to do something about it. so let's bow. let's vote tomorrow. t understand reasonable people disagree. i understand unreasonable people can disagree too.nt but i'm going to vote for neil gorsuch to be an associate justice of the united states supreme court. and then i'm going test this body to move on to other ports and tissues that are keeping mom's and dad's awake at night when they lie down and try to go to sleep. thank you mr. president, with

the >> the senator from oklahoma when we lost the honorable justice antonin scalia we were d all saddened he was such a letter to the court and i am so proud that president trump has nominated the successor worthy of fulfilling his shoes. h judge gorsuch has respect and approval from people across the legal community.o he has unrivaled bipartisan support. it is unfortunate that the democrats have tried to balk his

nomination. recently i had the honor of meeting judge gorsuch. fact, i was always loose to visit i said don't was my time i me know your credentials and i am going to support you anyway. but, he did call and we met and i tell you have to meet and talk to the guy in person to know what an individual that he really is. being from oklahoma and sensitive to the fact that he is a dissent of the west. none of our judges with the exception of california are what we will call the western united states in the area where peoplei need to be properly represented. as a judge in the tenth circuit court of appeals he has heard from utah, wyoming, new mexico,

and oklahoma.ave he knows the issues of the western states, what we are facing and he can deal with them. he has handled the issues that we have come before him with a lot of care and fairness. that oklahoma, it is in the tenth o circuit, his reputation is such that regardless of party affiliation, scripts, organizations and individuals have come out to support judge courses. including neil catchall, he was the acting solicitor general in president obama's cabinet. he is a cabinet member president obama. he testified before the senate n judiciary committee and wrote an op-ed piece in the new york times. when you listen to this, one of the individuals of obama said to

this is a quote, his years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence, record that should give the american people confidence that he will not compromise the principles to favor the president who favored him. that comes from an obama appointee.rk not only is he well-liked but he has impressive resume serving his law clerks and supreme cour. justices.'s clear including club you, harvard, oxford, is clear that he has the qualifications and as recently as last administration that is all you needed to be confirmed as the united states to be in the supreme court. what the democrats have done to block his nomination has never been done before. of and it is significant, the people who don't realize, peopls who are critical of some of the procedures taking place, they forget the fact that there has

never been in the history of america a successful partisan filibuster of the supreme court nomination.or this would be the first time it happened. i support the majority leader in changing the rules in face of this unprecedented action by a majority party. a minority party. there is no reason for their filibuster in this highly qualified individual, other than partisanship and catering to their liberal base. changing the rules of theev supreme court nomination had to be done and if the situation had been reversed the democrats would have done the same thing in a heartbeat. as we saw that in 2013 when they did the same thing. judge gorsuch deserves to be on the supreme court, he does not deserve people are upset that we observe the biden rule that is not providing for any action on that vacancy was the election season

is underway and the lost the election. that is joe biden. in addition to this impeccable job and experience in educational background, is best known for his religious liberty including the role of the provie dispute during the obama administration that required employers to provide abortion inducing drugs to their employees as part of their health insurance.obry one of these employers was hobby lobby. everybody knows who's hobby lobby is. if you did not back when i know him. i knew them in the 70s when the green family who started hobby lobby were operating out t of their garage making picture frames. look at them today. i have known them for a long time and they started the business with a 600-dollar loane now, they have over 700 stores across the united states are the

largest privately owed arts and craft store the world. joseph gorsuch and the supreme court agreed with hobby lobby when they upheld the religious liberty rights. i will be to his concurring opinion. it is rare profound. he wrote, this is gorsuch after they made the determination that hobby lobby did not have to give these drugs to the employees. he wrote. it is not for secular courts to rewrite the religious complaint of a faithful adherence or decide whether a religious teaching about simplicity imposes too much moral disapproval on those only indirectly assisting wrongful conduct. whether an active complicity isg or isn't continuing to from the underlying role use of time to it so a batter of faith. we must respect the faith. that is what he wrote in hobby lobby.

in a very similar thing he wrote a case known as the little sisters of the poor. he joined the opinion defending the rights of nuns not to be forced to pay for abortion inducing drugs and their healthcare plans. he said and this is another profound statement he made. he said when the law demands them to do something they consider it simple and the penalty for refusal is a large financial penalty then a law hai substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. it is not just petitioners of the christian faith judge gorsuch has come in sided with, he upheld the religiously seven native american prisoner and i found their ability to practice their faith restricted in one

matter or another. he comes his decision not decis because he's seeking some predetermined outcome. he comes because of the facts of the law and the constitution lead him. t for example in the lynch case corsets referred to the chevron deference is the judge made doctrine of the judiciary judicial duty. the chevron deference is a a judicial rule that requiress judges today for to an agency's interpretation.he were talking about a bureaucracy if the law is considered ambiguous or unclear or of the agency's interpretation is unreasonable., it this deference gives authority and power, moreover can provide uncertainty to the regulating community. judge gorsuch wrote the chevron

deference that allows agenciests to reverse decisions. reversed its current view 180 degrees anytime based merely on the shift of a political went and still prevail in court.nvire i know little bit about this. i spent a lot of your spin the chairman of the committee called the environment public works committee. during the obama years we had a bureaucracy that was trying to change the law instead of following the law.ke he was exactly what he was talking about in this case. where he talks to the chevron deference giving deference to a bureaucracy. if you imagine being in business heavily regulated one that has story about every 4 - 8 years that the rules might change and how would you plan. . . to have. do we as coequal branch of government continue to give up

our powers to the administrative state or do we take our power back and write laws as they should be implemented? furthermore, does the judicial branch as a coequal branch of government continue to give up their power of interpretation to the administrative state? these are important fundamental questions that should be addressed, and i'm glad that judge gorsuch nominated -- his nomination has brought these cases to the light. although judge gorsuch was nominated by a republican president, this doesn't mean, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should have any ude aisle should have any should have any concern about judge gorsuch's decision-making ability.ei you know it's important to point out that being a judge is not a about making decisions that are in the best interest of any political party or really about making decisions based on facts and the law and the constitution without bias.

during his confirmation he stated his judicial philosophyus saying i decide cases, i listened to the arguments made every bit breeds that are put to me i listen to my colleagues carefully and they listen to the lawyers in the wild. keeping an open mind through the entire process as best i can like him and i leave all the other stuff alone and i make a decision based on the facts of the law. who could argue with that? he is proven over period of time that he would do that and do the whole debate it's become evident that the democrats are asking him to rule in favor of causes. this is what a judge does and should we. regarding the roles and balance of our government gorsuch is what a judge should be.d he believes congress is as dracula and executive branchesre to carry them out the judicial branch is to interpret the lawst and the confirmation of judge

gorsuch will shape our benefit generation and all will be able to benefit from his quiet in mice decisions. i'm looking forward to confirming judge neil gorsuch. it's going to happen tomorrow i'm proud to give him my vote and justice will be well served. >> the senate has considered the nomination of judge neil gorsuch for many weeks.is we have set credentials with his incredible record. we have heard glowing praise on a nearly daily basis from colleagues, from students, from judges, newspaper editorials from democrats and from gorsuch republicans. judge gorsuch is independent and he is fair. he is beyond qualified and he