• Casey to oppose Gorsuch nomination,
Calls judge’s philosophy ‘rigid and restrictive’
Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Bob Casey has joined the chorus of Democrats opposing Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Pennsylvania Democrat announced his decision to vote no, citing Judge Gorsuch’s “hostility” toward the executive branch and his “rigid and restrictive judicial philosophy.”
His comments came as Mr. Gorsuch began his fourth and final day of Senate confirmation hearings Thursday.
“We cannot demand perfection from Supreme Court justices. But we can demand a constant commitment to fairness, to protecting all Americans regardless of power or wealth, to that guiding creed: equal justice under law. I have concluded that Judge Gorsuch is not the right choice to fulfill this commitment. I will not support his nomination,” Mr. Casey said in a lengthy explanation posted online.
He characterized Judge Gorsuch’s judicial philosophy as right of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s, saying it “employs the narrowest possible reading of federal law and exercises extreme skepticism, even hostility, toward executive branch agencies.” He said Judge Gorsuch argued judges should restrict the ability of such agencies to do their work on behalf of the American people.
“Indeed, even Justice Scalia, a conservative ideological stalwart whom Judge Gorsuch has praised effusively, would not even go this far.”
U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey, RPa., previously announced his intention to support the nomination.
While in the minority, Democrats can filibuster the nomination. The Senate’s top Democrat, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, has pledged to do just that. Mr. Schumer criticized Judge Gorsuch, saying he “almost instinctively favors the powerful over the weak” and would not serve as a check on President Donald Trump or be a mainstream justice.
If the Democrats do filibuster, Republicans could employ the so-called “nuclear option,” which would change Senate rules so that justices can be approved by a simple majority rather than 60 votes under current rules.
Mr. Casey said that would be a bad move.
“When you’re given the kind of power that only nine people in our Republic have, I think it should be a much higher” threshold for confirmation than 50 votes, he said. “I would hope Republicans would not go in the direction of a rule change on the Supreme Court. … It would be really bad for our • Senate confirms Friedman as ambassador to Israel, with little Democratic support. • USDA pick Perdue pledges to advocate inside White House for farmers. • SEC nominee Clayton assures that his Wall St. work not problem.
Visit post-gazette.com country.”
Conservatives pounced on Mr. Casey’s declaration.
The announcement is a continuation of Mr. Casey’s “lurch to the left,” NRSC spokesman Bob Salera said in a statement.
Pennsylvania Republican Party Chairman Val DiGiorgio said Mr. Casey should support Mr. Gorsuch because he was selected by a president that Pennsylvania voted for. By opposing the nomination, he said, the senator is disrespecting the will of his state’s voters.
Last year, Republicans refused even to hold hearings for President Barack Obama's pick, Merrick Garland.
Mr. Casey told reporters he was particularly swayed by two cases Mr. Gorsuch heard as a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.
The first involved a trucker who was fired for abandoning his load when he unhitched his trailer and drove off from the side of the highway where he had been waiting two hours for assistance to repair frozen brakes on his trailer. The heater was broken in his cab, temperatures were below freezing, and he was concerned about his safety. Judge Gorsuch sided with the employer, TransAm Trucking, but the majority of the court ruled that the firing was illegal and called Judge Gorsuch’s interpretation “curious.”
In the second, Judge Gorsuch overturned three previous rulings that found that a family of an autistic boy was entitled to tuition reimbursement for a residential program. Just Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Judge Gorsuch’s decision that the boy’s public school was meeting its obligation as long as his progress was “merely more than de minimus.” The Supreme Court said “a student offered an educational program providing ‘merely more than de minimis’ progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.” Mr. Casey said he agrees.
Such rulings demonstrate that Judge Gorsuch’s rulings are rooted in his judicial philosophy rather than considerations of complex circumstances ordinary people face, Mr. Casey said.
“It’s in that disconnect that ordinary people get hurt,” he said. “They lose their livelihood, find their rights curtailed or see the courthouse doors closed in their face.”