Transcripts For CSPAN2 Final Day Of Gorsuch Confirmation Hea

Good morning to everybody whose here and especially those who have prepared for testimony today. We welcome everybody on what i think will be the final day of judge gorsuchs confirmation hearing. Weve already heard two days of impressive testimony from the nominee. I think hes shown great command of the law and i think he has showed a humility with his humble delivery and i think people learned a lot about our not only our political system but our judicial system with whats going on the last three days. Today will hear from a number of outside witnesses. Well hear from a number of distinguished witnesses both in support and in opposition to the nominee. They will all speak to the qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice. I look forward from hearing from all the witnesses today. Let me modify this a little bit because im going to spend maybe 15 minutes at the Agriculture Committee because the nominee for secretary of agricultures before that committee and im a member of that committee and ill have somebody else chair. That wont stop the business going on. So thats the only time i should probably be away. Each of our witnesses will have five minutes to make an Opening Statement and then well proceed to questionings if members have have questions of the members, well obviously accommodate that. Now im going oh, no, do you have an opening comment. Im sorry. I just about forgot that. I do not the, mr. Chairman. Now well go to our first panel who will feature two representatives of the American Bar Association. You may come to the table. Ill start over again with the Standing Committee on the federal judiciary nancy deegan and Shannon Edwards. Nancy is the chair of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the federal judiciary and Shannon Edwards is the tenth circuit representative on the American Bar Association Standing Committee of the federal judiciary and served as a lead evaluator on the Standing Committees investigation of judge gorsuch. I would like to swear you if you would let me. I dont know whether we have to stand, i guess we just do it naturally. Do you swear that the testimony youre about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god . I do. They each answered affirmatively. We will now have you give your statement, please. Thank you very much. Its a privilege to be here. I am nancy deegan from new orleans and tim very privileged to chair the American Bar Associations Standing Committee on the federal judiciary and as you indicated senator, im joined today by Shannon Edwards from Oklahoma City who is our tenth circuit representative and was the lead evaluator on the Standing Committees investigation of judge gorsuch. The Standing Committee has conducted its independent and comprehensive evaluations of the professional qualifications to the federal bench for the last 60 years plus. The 15 distinguished lawyers who make up our committee come from across the country representing every federal judicial circuit. They annually volunteer on a probono basis hundreds of hours to evaluate nominees to the federal bench and we focus solely on nominees integrity, professional competence and judicial temperance. We dont consider a nominees political affiliate, philosophy or ideology and we do not solicit any information with regard to how he might vote on a particular issue or matter that may come before the court. The Standing Committees valuation of the nominee to the Supreme Court is based upon the premises that a justice must possess exceptional professional qualifications. All 15 members of the Standing Committee participate in the evaluation of a Supreme Court nominee. Each Standing Committee member reaches out to a wide range of people within his or her respective circuit who may have information regarding the nominees integrity, professional competence and judicial tem practicement. Reading groups of scholars and practitioners review the written work and advise the Standing Committee of their findings. The Reading Groups independently evaluate the nominees analytical ability, knowledge of the law, application of facts to law, expertise in har mow nizing a body of law and the ability to communicate effectively. The academic Reading Groups involved in judge gorsuchs valuation were composed of experts in their field from the faculty of Pennsylvania Law School and the loyal college of law in new orleans. The practitioners Reading Group included nationally recognized lawyers who have argued before the Supreme Court and served as law clerks to justices on the Supreme Court. These three groups read all of judge gorsuchs published opinions and many of his other writings. During the evaluation of judge gorsuch the Standing Committee members contacted almost 5,000 people nationwide who might have knowledge of judge gorsuchs professional qualifications and these included judges, lawyers, academics and members of the general community. Circuit members then interviewed those who indicated that they had personal knowledge of judge gorsuch through their dealings with him as a judge, colleague, cocounsel, opposing counsel, teacher, Organization Member and even classmate. We followed judge gorsuchs career from his time at prep tri school through his tenure on the tenth circuit. All interviews were conducted in competence to assure Accurate Information and candid assetments. Finally as we do with every evaluation we conducted a personal interview with judge gorsuch. We met with him on february 27th and questioned him on a wide variety of topics. After our comprehensive evaluation was complete, our findings were assembled into a detailed confidential written report which included the written reports of the academic readings groups and the practitioners Reading Groups and this report was approximately a thousand pages long. Each member of the Standing Committee then studied that final report and individually evaluated judge gorsuch using three possible rating categories, qualified, well qualified or not qualified. To merit a Standing Committee rating of well qualified a Supreme Court nominee must be a preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience and meet the very highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial tem perment. The rating of well qualified is reserved for those found to merit the committees strongest affirmative endorsement. Having examined judge gorsuch through this lens the Standing Committee members unanimously voted that he deserved the well qualified rating. On march 19th we submitted a written statement further explaining our process and our rating and we respectfully respect that it be made a part of this committees official record. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Edwards is not going to say anything is that right . We are pleased to answer any questions that the committee may have. I think i have a couple questions. Theyre somewhat repetitive of maybe some of the things that you said but id like to have that emphasis but before i give a short statement, i would like to compliment anybody who serves on evaluating these judges at all levels and probably at the level of the Supreme Court. Its much more difficult and elongated as it probably should be, but i know david brown, des moines iowa who does this with a lot of judges and takes it real seriously and you almost when you visit with him about the work he does, you almost think its a fulltime job and hes obviously got to go make money someplace else, so he must have some time to practice law, but he really seems to me like he puts a lot of time in to it. Its an honor, sir. So for both of you i would compliment you on what you do. Thank you. As you noted in your testimony, the American Bar Association awarded judge gorsuch its highest rating of well qualified by the unanimous vote. The statement explaining the rating states this and youve said this already but let me repeat it. The rating of well qualified is reserved for those found to merit the committees strongest affirmative endorsement. In other words, a rating of well qualified is not given lightly. Would you agree with that . Absolutely. Okay. Now, i just want to mention a few points from the report. First the Standing Committee found that, quote, judge gorsuch enjoys an excellent reputation for integrity and say person of outstanding character, end of quote. In fact, one of his colleagues on the bench said, let me quote, i have known and interacted professionally with judge gorsuch since his appointment to the tenth Circuit Court of appeals and my experience as a judge i cannot identify any person more qualified in every sense of the word to serve as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. Judge gorsuch would be an invaluable addition to the high court, end of quote. Second, the Committee Found that the judges professional competence exceeds the high criteria reviewed by the committee. In fact, the Committee Report stated given the breadth and diversity and strength of the feedback that we received from judges and lawyers of all political persuasions and from so many parts of the profession, the committee would be would have been hard pressed to come to any conclusion other than judge gorsuch has demonstrated professional competence that is exceptionally outstanding time and again, those with whom he has worked and those who have been involved in cases over which he has presided have applauded his intellect, thoughtful discerness and written clarity, end of quote. On the judicial temperament the Committee Found that lawyers and judges alike overwhelmingly praised his judicial temperament and finally on Judicial Independence, the Committee Found, quote, that judge gorsuch believes strongly in the independence of the Judicial Branch of government and we predict that he will be a strong but respectful voice in protecting it. And one person interviewed for the report stated, quote, in addition to his outstanding academic credentials and brilliant mind, judge gorsuchs demeanor and written opinions during his tenure on the tenth circuit demonstrate that he believes unwaveringly in the rule of law and Judicial Independence. In my opinion he is exceptionally well qualified to serve as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I wholeheartedly agree with the American Bar Associations assessment of judge gorsuch and i have one question but before i do that, i think we had two days of about 20 hours total that people had a chance if they were watching to view some of those things that you said about his belief in the rule of law and Judicial Independence. In fact, if theres any one thing that i heard in answer to so many questions that somebody wanted either a yes or no, what they really got is, im going to follow the law and i believe in Judicial Independence and following precedent. Now, so i think being a little bit rep tettive would you describe once again for the committee the scope of review that allowed you to come to these conclusions and then ill go to senator feinstein. Yes, sir. To merit the Standing Committees rating of wellqualified, we found, sir, that he was a preeminent member of the legal profession, that he has outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience and that he meets the very highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament and we did this in connection with reaching out to those who had personal knowledge about judge gorsuchs integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament and we did that by interviewing many people who not only encountered him as a judge but also as an opposing counsel, as a cocounsel, as princip Principal Deputy attorney general for the United States, as a private practitioner as a law clerk for the Supreme Court and the dc circuit and through personal dealings with him, so the scope of our investigation was deep and broad and involved all 15 members of our Standing Committee in addition to those 26 professors from those two law schools and the 14 very well recognized practitioners who have appeared before the United States Supreme Court and who previously acted as law clerks. So that is the scope, senator, and as i said before, we do not give the wellqualified rating lightly and i can assure you that every member of the Standing Committee reviewed intently the 997 pages that were compiled from the interview notes to the analyses by the law professors and the practitioners in order to each independently reach that rating on a unanimous basis. Senator, if i might add would you turn on your mic . You sure can add, i think for no other reasons than your relatives back home ought to hear something. Some of them are up pretty early. We were our task was to early. Our task was to cast a wide net. We made contact with over 5,000 individuals. I personally contacted 344 and received comments from 82. So everyone of the Committee Members did likewise. That is why the report is 944 pages long. Thanks very much, mr. Chairman. I very much respect what the american bar does. I have read the report now and very much appreciate your work. Let me ask you about the question. Did you review the documents that these documents were recently submitted to the committee. Is that right . When we received our information from the department of justice on which we started our analysis, what we call the pdq which is called Senate Judiciary questionnaire, we got a stack of materials and then a supplement. We did not receive the responses that were recently submitted to the committee. I did take a quick look at what that encompasses just from the description on the website of the Senate Judiciary committee and saw it involved some 170,000 pages. I sat in some of the hearings and we heard some of the questions that the Committee Members asked of judge gorsuch. It appeared from his answers that these materials were prepared in his role as a principled deputy associated attorney general. He in answering the questions indicated that he was acting as a lawyer and at one point you may have asked him about some hand written note and he said i dont have independent recollection of that. We did not have an opportunity to review those materials. We would base our information on the personal knowledge of those who dealt with judge gorsuch and if he was acting in his capacity as a lawyer that may be protected by privilege. We are happy to review that if necessary. Based on what i heard i dont believe it would change the opinion of the committee. I appreciate that. The documents i am referring to are much smaller in number, maybe a stack like this. But what they do indicate are some of his personal thinking on subjects of great concern namely torture. In a way i regret i didnt ask more questions. I will do some written questions in that area. I happen to hold the view that a member of this government is held to a different standard than an attorney may be in private life that if you think something is wrong you have an obligation to do something about it and not just say my principle wanted tice a ed this and so i we have too much of that in this area. I also want you to know that i think the work you do is very fine. I read it with care. Let me just say one other thing. Im going to do this because for many of us what has happened this past year has been very painful. You have also done an evaluation of judge garland who was not given the privilege even of a committee hearing. I would like to read excerpts from your report on him. Garlands integrity is off the scales, page five. Garland is the best there is. He is the finest judge i have ever met. He has no weaknesses page six. He may be the perfect human being. He is unnaturally [ laughter ] he is unnaturally blessed with brilliance. Things come to him quickly. In my opinion there is no better f