Gorsuch Declines To Discuss Emoluments Clause

President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, gives testimony on day two of his confirmation hearings, in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill, on Tuesday, March 21, 2017. (Photo by ... President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, gives testimony on day two of his confirmation hearings, in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill, on Tuesday, March 21, 2017. (Photo by Cheriss May) *** Please Use Credit from Credit Field ***(Sipa via AP Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch on Wednesday declined to discuss the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which President Donald Trump has been accused of violating.

“What is the purpose of the Emoluments Clause?” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked Gorsuch during his Senate confirmation hearing.

“The Emoluments Clause, Senator, is not a clause that had attracted a lot of attention until recently,” Gorsuch said. “Among other things, it prohibits members of the government of this country from taking emoluments, gifts from foreign agents.”

The liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a lawsuit in January accusing Trump of violating the Emoluments Clause by leasing space to state-owned companies and obtaining loans from foreign state-owned banks.

Trump brushed off the lawsuit as “totally without merit.”

Gorsuch said on Wednesday that the exact meaning of that clause is currently the matter of “certainly threatened litigation, impending litigation” and declined to discuss it further.

“I have to be very careful about expressing any views,” Gorsuch said.

“It was done in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence, to prohibit anyone in office from receiving or holding any emoluments in foreign states,” Leahy pressed. “You wouldn’t be hesitant to discuss the Fourth Amendment or the Fifth Amendment, would you?”

“Well, I am hesitant to discuss any part of the Constitution to the extent we’re talking about a case that’s likely to come before a court, pending or impending,” Gorsuch said.

Latest Livewire
25
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. Oh, FFS. He probably wouldn’t answer what he had for breakfast because he might get food poisoning and there’d be the possibility of an impending case. This guy should be on “Dancing with the Stars.”

  2. What a brave, brave man, this Gorsuch.

    How convenient that he won’t discuss emoluments.

  3. What a weasel. Is he the worst nominee in this respect? I know others have been very cautious, but he just sits there with his dick hanging out and his mouth shut, like a guy waiting for his first date with a pee hooker. It’s ugly.

  4. I don’t really care what his answers, or non-answers, are.

    Just the fact that Hair Furor thought he was worthy of a SCOTUS nomination makes him permanently, irreparably damaged goods.

    Block him out, block him out…

  5. I was opposed to him on principle before he started talking. Now I’m opposed to him on his own merits.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

19 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for scavok Avatar for littlegirlblue Avatar for heirball Avatar for brooklyndweller Avatar for sysprog Avatar for mymy Avatar for economides Avatar for steviedee111 Avatar for turdburgler Avatar for chelsea530 Avatar for breakingdeadmen Avatar for ottnott Avatar for geofu54 Avatar for darcy Avatar for spencersmom Avatar for rickjones Avatar for tiowally Avatar for coimmigrant Avatar for centralasiaexpat Avatar for maximus Avatar for coprophagoussmile Avatar for aiddon

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: