Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch on Tuesday said that attacks on the “integrity or honesty or independence” of the judiciary are “disheartening” no matter who they come from.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) asked Gorsuch during his confirmation hearing to address President Donald Trump’s remarks about the judiciary. Trump attacked Judge James Robart as a “so-called judge” after Robart temporarily suspended Trump’s controversial executive order on immigration.
Gorsuch previously referred to Trump’s comments as “an elephant in the room” and reportedly called Trump’s comments “demoralizing” and “disheartening” in a closed-door meeting with Blumenthal in February.
During his confirmation hearing, Gorsuch said that judges “have to be tough” and “accept criticism with some humility,” but that he finds attacks on the integrity of federal judges “demoralizing.”
“When anyone criticizes the honesty or integrity, the motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening,” Gorsuch said.
“Anyone including the President of the United States?” Blumenthal pressed.
“Anyone is anyone,” Gorsuch replied.
“And isn’t that reference by the President to a so-called judge, isn’t his attack on the same judges who struck down that order as playing politics, isn’t that an attack on the judiciary, on its integrity?” Blumenthal asked.
“I can’t comment on specific cases and I can’t get involved in politics,” Gorsuch said. “I’ve said what I think I ethically may in this area.”
Wait a minute.
Commenting on what the president says about judges is getting “involved in politics?”
By that standard, accepting the president’s nomination to the Supreme Court is getting involved in politics too.
W.T.F? If you’re going to be consistent, walk away now!
Get used to it, snowflake. Politics, law enforcement, lawyers and pretty much everyone are being questioned and “attacked” about their integrity. If you think judges are somehow exempt, you’re living in a dream world.
I think that judges and judiciary should not be above the law. They have to be held accountable for their actions.
GAH!!!
So yeah, I hate to say it, but he’s been giving mostly the right answers and giving them well. He’s obviously very intelligent and well spoken. A modicum of evasiveness was to be expected and we’d have seen it with Garland too, particularly when you start getting into questions about pending issues making their way through the system and which are likley to find their way to SCOTUS. Sure, I’m as tempted to find fault and knit-pick as everyone else, or read into it that he’s a devious manipulator, etc. etc., because I consider the source…and where this guy’s nomination came from is, well, might as well be the pits of hell…but here we are…he’s done a good job of defending himself and that’s unfortunate.
I know that’s a seriously frustrating answer…I feel it too…but we’re talking about a position where the buck will stop for those pending cases. I’m averse to calling it the right answer, but he’s also not really all that wrong either.