We learned of the tremendous experience and superb qualifications he brings to the bench. He's served on the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for a decade; as a senior official in the Department of Justice; and for a decade in private practice. He clerked for two Supreme Court justices after getting his law degree at Harvard and doctorate as a Marshall Scholar at Oxford.
Judge Gorsuch explained to the Judiciary Committee his belief that our Constitution and laws must be interpreted based on what their texts say -- not on a judge's belief about what they should say, the whims of public opinion, or personal bias. This respects democracy and the separation of powers; gives citizens notice of the rules that bind them; and permits judges a common and neutral basis to decide cases.
Judge Gorsuch reminded the committee time and time again that the role of a judge is limited and narrow in scope -- a judge's job is not to write the laws, but to interpret them faithfully.
The hearing last week also confirmed that the arguments peddled by the left against him are total straw men and non sequiturs.
Judge Gorsuch is no extremist or judicial radical. Senate Democrats agreed with that assessment back in 2006, when the chamber unanimously confirmed him
to his current post. Since his nomination in January, lawyers and legal scholars on both sides of the aisle have urged his confirmation and commended his fair treatment of the law and his impartial, methodical reasoning.
The American Bar Association, which the Democrats have called "the gold standard" for judicial nominations, gives him its highest rating.
The Democrats cherry-picked a handful of cases to claim that Judge Gorsuch sides with big companies over sympathetic individuals. An examination of his record shows that is not true, but it is also beside the point. A good judge does not judge the litigants, but the case. His motivation in each and every case is to follow the law wherever it leads, plain and simple.
Critics have failed to point out that liberal judges also sided with him. In fact, 97% of the thousands of cases he decided were unanimous decisions, meaning every judge on the panel (including those appointed by Democrats) -- supported the final result.
During the hearing, Democrats also tried to make him declare how he might rule on one case or another. That is a silly test, and they know it. As a sitting federal judge, ethical obligations prevent Judge Gorsuch from answering such questions.
That's why Justices Ginsburg and Kagan rightfully refused to do so during their confirmation hearings. The Democrats have also argued that the existence of an FBI investigation
that's wholly unrelated to Judge Gorsuch somehow warrants delaying his nomination.
The reality is that no intellectually honest argument against Judge Gorsuch exists. His qualifications are impeccable -- and exactly what you would expect to see for a Supreme Court nominee. His character is sterling. And his devotion to the rule of law and the text of the Constitution make him the right man to fill the seat left vacant by Justice Antonin Scalia.
If Democrats refuse to allow an up-or-down vote on Judge Gorsuch, as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has threatened, then there's no Republican nominee they won't filibuster. Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice. The question is whether Democrats will give him the up-or-down vote he deserves.