Gorsuch Hearing To Start Monday; Turley To Testify On Thursday

Neil_Gorsuch_February_2017

The Senate Judiciary Committee has released the schedule and witness list for confirmation hearing of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch for the United States Supreme Court.  I have been called as a witness for the majority and will likely testify on Wednesday or Thursday.  The hearings will begin on Monday.  Questions for Judge Gorsuch will begin on Tuesday and likely continue into Wednesday.

Here is the witness list:

Witness List

Hearing before the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary

on

The Nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice
of the Supreme Court of the United States

Monday, March 20, 2017
Hart Senate Office Building, Room 216
11:00 a.m.

Introducers

 

The Honorable Michael Bennet
United States Senator
State of Colorado

The Honorable Cory Gardner
United States Senator
State of Colorado

Mr. Neal Katyal
Former Acting Solicitor General 2010-2011
Washington, DC

Panel I

 

The Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch

Panel II

 

Ms. Nancy Scott Degan

American Bar Association
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary

New Orleans, LA

Ms. Shannon Edwards
American Bar Association
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary
Edmond, OK

Panel III

Majority

The Honorable Deanell Reece Tacha
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge (Retired)
Duane and Kelly Roberts Dean and Professor of Law

Pepperdine Law School

Malibu, CA

The Honorable Robert Harlan Henry
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge (Retired)
President

Oklahoma City University
Oklahoma City, OK

The Honorable John L. Kane
U.S. District Court Judge (Senior)
District of Colorado
Denver, CO

Ms. Leah Bressack
Former Law Clerk

Washington, DC

Minority

Ms. Elisa Massimino
President and CEO
Human Rights First

Washington, DC

Mr. Jameel Jaffer
Executive Director
Knight First Amendment Institute

Columbia University

New York, NY

Mr. Jeff Perkins
Berthoud, CO

Mr. Guerino J. Calemine, III
General Counsel
Communications Workers of America
Washington, DC


Panel IV

 

Majority

 

Mr. Jeff Lamken
Partner
MoloLamken
Washington, DC

Professor Lawrence Solum
Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law
Georgetown University Law Center
Washington, DC

Professor Jonathan Turley
J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law
The George Washington University Law School
Washington, DC

Ms. Karen Harned
Executive Director
National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center
Washington, DC

Minority

 

Ms. Heather McGhee

President

Demos
New York, NY

Ms. Fatima Goss Graves
Senior Vice President for Program & President-Elect
National Women’s Law Center
Washington, DC

Mr. Pat Gallagher
Director

Environmental Law Program

Sierra Club

Oakland, CA

Ms. Eve Hill
Partner

Goldstein Levy

Baltimore, MD

Panel V

Majority

Mr. Peter Kirsanow
Commissioner

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Partner

Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff
Cleveland, OH

Ms. Alice Fisher

Partner

Latham & Watkins
Washington, DC

Ms. Hannah Smith

Senior Counsel

Becket
Washington, DC

Mr. Tim Myer

Former Law Clerk
Nashville, TN

Mr. Jamil Jaffer
Former Law Clerk
Arlington, VA

Minority

 

Ms. Kristen Clarke
President & CEO

Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

Washington, DC

Ms. Sarah Warbelow
Legal Director
Human Rights Campaign
Washington, DC

Ms. Amy Hagstrom Miller
President & CEO

Founder

Whole Woman’s Health

Charlottesville, VA

Professor William Marshall
William Rand Kenan Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC

Ms. Sandy Phillips
Boerne, TX

 

93 thoughts on “Gorsuch Hearing To Start Monday; Turley To Testify On Thursday”

  1. It is unfair to say that Al Gore sucks and that his cousin has the nomination. The websites are rude to Neil. Not this one but others.

  2. bettykath –

    Do corporations have Rights to Property? Contracts? First Amendment (free speech / advertising)? Then it seems they most likely have a number of others, including religion, too …

    billmcwilliams987@hotmail.com

    A good example of an appalling Gorsuch ruling was “United States v. Rodriguez” 739 F.3d 481 (11th Cir. 2013). His conclusion was just as bad as Robinson, and very similar:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/judge_neil_gorsuch_some_cause_for_concern.html

    So, sorry, JT, I would have to vote NO, as in NO SUCH GORSUCH.

    1. How do you think JT would defend that and other equally appalling Gorsuch opinions?

    2. Bettykath believes that every person’s freedom of association and freedom of contract should be contingent on the approval of people like Bettykath.

    3. Bettykath also does not seem to understand that churches are incorporated entities (or she doesn’t care).

  3. I very much doubt that any of the current day Democrats seriously object to a right wing nomination to the Supreme Court. They may smart a little because they were thwarted from their legitimate right to put their own neoliberal judge in there during the last administration, but beyond that, most any opposition is just all show all the time from the Vichy side of our duopoly.

    There is no longer any functional need for the Democrat party. It is not as good or efficient at robbing the people blind as the Republicans and Capitalism, referred to on this site as Democracy, always seeks to replace redundancy with monopoly. But It takes a while for the death of a party to sink in as a fait accompli so appearances must be upheld and the show must drag on.

    1. As to the distinction to Professor Turley; he deserves better. A country whose government is so corrupt that it is made up exclusively in all branches, of the rich, by the rich and for the rich, must by virtue of it’s very composition contaminate by the same degree every event and position within.

      1. The fact that more and more people are becoming aware of just how un-democratic our government is, gives hope that maybe, starting in 2020, the 1% parties will face serious competition from a party that actually does represent the aspirations of the 99%.

  4. It is quite an honor to testify in support of a Supreme Court nomination. Kudos to Mr. Turley.

    I’m surprised at how long these hearings have taken just to open. It’s been two months since the President took office, and he has the right to nominate Judge Gorsuch, but they’re just getting around to these hearings now when the the seat has been vacant for over 13 months?

    I was and still am a very big fan of that “radical leftist,” Russ Feingold, who was one of three of the eight Democratic members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (the other two being Leahy and Kohl) who supported the nomination of the current Chief Justice (who was Feingold’s classmate if I recall correctly), even though Roberts was of a similar social and judicial philosophy to that of Gorsuch. Democrats should learn a lesson from Russ, and knock off the histrionics.

    Other than Gorsuch being a right-winger and allegedly supporting the overhaul of nontextual rights that no Democrat will be able to stop with these hearings anyway, there’s been no allegations in his otherwise stellar background that would make these hearings anything more than perfunctory. Get on with it! Seat him alright already!

  5. Be on the lookout for Senators Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi & a few others. They already made up their minds.

  6. I am surprised that since GW dropped to 30th in the rankings, they are allowing Turley to speak.

    1. Here’s hoping JT lets slip that mask of intellectual objectivity and shows the passion, if only for an instant. It’s America: We remember and honor Joe Lewis more than Oliver Wendell Holmes.

    2. Why the surprise? JT’s support for a fellow 1%er is to be expected. Because JT supports the 1st Amendment, Gorsuchs’ radical right wing views, combined with his wife’s atrocious views (privatize schools and every other government program that helps the 99%) helps soften his otherwise oligarchic judicial views.

  7. There is some guy out on another blog who thinks Gorsuch is related to Al Gore and that he is all in favor of combating global warming. If such is the case then one must ask if he believes that the rain in Spain falls mainly in the plain.

  8. The questions to ask and the history of the candidate to study is whether he/she is Reconstructed.
    If from the South or an elite place many lawyers do not believe in the Original intent of the Framers of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments which were passed after the Civil War in the Reconstruction Era. Attitudes towards the elements of the 14th Amendment are of particular importance. Due process of law. Equal protection of law. Ending aristocracy. Then, look to see how they feel about the right of women to vote.
    On the immigration issue and the duty and power of the Executive and Federal branch of government to keep terrorists from coming across our borders: question the candidate on some of the dumb ideas postured by the judges out in the 9th Circuit, both district court and appellate court judges. What is their position or Korematsu? If they think Korematsu is some form of Hawai stew then vote no.

    1. Based on your criteria, why would JT want to put his reputation on the line by supporting an elitist like Gorsuch? Rich people kiss each other. Poor people P*** on each other.

  9. Gorsuch will be quite bad for the poor and powerless.

    Another example of government by the Bedlamists; a kakistocracy.

      1. What’s stopping you from doing that now? Like my Church does. Oh, that’s right, you’re only all in on these programs if it’s someone else’s money you’re spending.

        1. How about if, on our tax returns, we have a checklist for things we personally want to fund? And our money would only go to those?

          1. I’d prefer to directly control where my charitable giving goes. I do not need the government to function as a middleman for my giving.

      2. I assume you did the same memes for all those times the Obamas went on vacation, because the 2 weeks a year the rest of us get is way too little time to ham it up in lavish vacations.

        1. Karen – you are aware that the First Family cannot live in the WH for at least a year while security, etc is being up-dated. Obama could have been the one to move out, but he left it to his successor. The official residence is Blair House, if they want to use it.

      3. That is for certain. Remember when Trump complained about Obamas 4 Million Dollar vacation with his family? Remember when Trump was running for offfice and complained about Obama playing golf? Remember when Trump was running that he said he would probably never leave the White House as there was too much work to be done?

        So far he has spent 1/3 of his time in office out of office in Florida or New York. And yes, this has cost 10 times the amount of one Obama Family Vacation. And yes, he has played golf, not very good I understand. But when you are the president he keeps score, literally and figuratively. How about those 37 trademarks that China had granted Trump just this year. And he has been trying to get the trademarks since 2000. Amazing, really amazing folk.

    1. Gorsuch will be quite bad for the poor and powerless.

      He’ll be nothing of the kind. Progtrash define their various power-seeking maneuvers and patronage mill as activity on behalf of the ‘poor and powerless’, when it really represents a transfer of discretion away from elected officials and ordinary people and toward certain occupational groups – lawyers, academics, mental health tradesmen, social workers, public sector labor meatheads, and the media in particular. There isn’t much altruistic about it. Originalist judges refuse to co-operate and are therefore the enemy.

      The impecunious people who actually live here would benefit from safe streets, low levels of immigration, labor market sorting that does not rely heavily on higher education, briefer courses of higher education, improved (and more vocationally-oriented) secondary education, orderly schools and ready choice of schools; a restructuring of the ways in which such things as medical care, long-term care, and schooling are financed; more fluid labor markets, and replacement of cash doles and commodity subsidies with things like earned-income credits.

      Absolutely none of the foregoing is part of the liberal agenda. It especially is not part of the agenda of the lawyer left.

    1. Just traipsing out the same old ghosts and zombies of Christmases’ past when we could freely spend to indulge their elitist causes which benefitted themselves infinitely more than any “marginalized” populations. Sort of a radical Monster Mash:

      1. Great video. Bobby is definitely not Wilson’s brother. There’s a new bio out on Wilson Pickett, In The Midnight Hour. Gets pretty good reviews. It’s on my reading list.

    1. I agree!! He was a professor at Tulane Law School and I did some research for him. He’s an honest, analytical giant and would make a great S.Ct. justice!

  10. I like the candidate. I did not like Merrick whatshisname. We will all learn more from these hearings.
    I would like some Supreme Court Justices appointed and confirmed who have tried jury trials in their careers.
    All we get are law profs from Harvard and Yale who clerked for judges and perhaps had a stint at the Justice Department and teach law students. We need a Hugo Black or Thurgood Marshall.

Comments are closed.