Democrats’ Gorsuch attacks undermine law
Opening statements from Democratic senators during the Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Neil Gorsuch didn’t disappoint in absurdly trying to paint the nominee as a tool of corporate America and an enemy of “the little guy.”
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, wasted no time: “A pattern jumps out at me. ... You consistently choose corporations and powerful interests over people.”
Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., weighed in with more of the same: “I fear confirming you would guarantee more ... decisions that continue to favor powerful corporate interests over the rights of average Americans.”
Since the 1970s, every nominee from a Republican president has been attacked, among other things, as hostile to women’s rights and civil rights. That includes Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter — justices who often have been as zealous as any in finding, creating and expanding rights for women and minorities.
A newer attack line for liberal critics is that a judicial nominee favors big interests, employers, people with money — anyone in conflict with the little guy.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, DMass., scion of wealth and privilege, used that line against nominee Sam Alito, a man whose background, family and experience gave him ample affinity with ordinary life and people.
Kennedy’s successor, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has reached for the same trick. She claims Gorsuch “has sided with employers who deny wages,” “sided with employers who denied retirement benefits to their workers,” and “sided with big insurance companies against disabled workers.”
The way little guys get protected isn’t to have a judge who votes on his or her gut sympathies. Instead, it’s to have a legal system that functions according to rules, legitimately enacted by constitutionally appropriate bodies and procedures, enforced in principled, predictable ways by judges who read the law carefully and apply it as written.
Beyond having the wrong goal for judging, there’s a bit of flimflam in Warren’s attack. Of course, among the thousands of cases Gorsuch has voted on, he inevitably has decided for employers, and against them; for corporations, and against them; for insurance companies, and
against them. But he hasn’t decided consistently or inappropriately for or against anyone, any group, or any class.
That’s evident in the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary voting Gorsuch a unanimous well-qualified rating, its highest.
Having served on that body, I can attest that its members take their task seriously and look critically at every possible issue that could affect a judge’s qualifications. Any hint of impropriety would be inconsistent with the top rating.