Gorsuch: What we learned
Once upon a time, Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justice nominees had a straightforward purpose: for Senators to learn the views of the nominees. But ever since Robert Bork was rejected by the Senate after giving his views back in the 1980s, we get less and less of that.
These days, there are no surprises, and no iconoclasts. All four current Supreme Court justices nominated by Democrats vote consistently with positions held by the mainstream of that party, and all four justices nominated by Republicans support positions held by mainstream Republicans.
It’s safe to say that Neil Gorsuch, if confirmed, will vote more or less the way that other recent Republican-nominated justices have voted. Yet for 10 hours or so on Tuesday, he was pretending (as Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor did a few years ago) that he is a total blank slate.
Even worse? There’s nothing to be done about any of this. Nominees (and the White Houses that prep them for these hearings) are following clear incentives established by the Senate, and senators aren’t about to do anything to change it. Republicans who otherwise
support Gorsuch are not going to threaten to withhold their support unless he comes clean on his actual views. Nor would Democrats have similarly threatened Kagan and Sotomayor. To the contrary: Senators who support the nominee are happy to have those nominees keep their mouths shut.
Fortunately, there is one saving grace that makes these hearings worthwhile: Attentive viewers can learn quite a bit about the Supreme Court by watching them.
That’s particularly true for the opposition. The out-party tends to argue that each nominee is outside of the mainstream — which they do by highlighting policies or philosophies on which the nominee has taken (supposedly) extreme positions. On Tuesday, viewers would be reminded of the issues that are at stake, from abortion rights to torture to religious practices and much more. And they would learn about obscure but very important doctrines at stake, such as “Chevron deference,” which has to do with how willing the courts are to overturn decisions by executive branch agencies.
So, yeah, you probably didn’t learn much about Neil Gorsuch by watching the hearing, but it’s still a worthwhile exercise, as it winds up emphasizing how much the courts matter to all citizens.