Transcripts For CSPAN2 Final Day Of Gorsuch Confirmation Hea

[inaudible conversations] good morning to everybody who is here, and especially those who are prepared for testimony today. We welcome everybody on what i think will be the final day of judge gorsuch confirmation hearing. Weve already heard todays of impressive testimony from the nominee. I think is 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 not only our political system but our judicial system with whats going on the last three days. Today we will hear from a number of outside witnesses. We will they are from a number of distinguished witnesses, bot in support and in opposition to the nominee. They will all speak to then qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice. Mi i look forward to hearing from all the witnesses today. Let me modify this a little bit because im going to spend maybe 15 minutes at the agriculture community, because the nominee for secretary of agriculture is before the committee and im a member of that committee and i will 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 we will proceed to questionings if members have, have questions of the members. We will obviously accommodate that. Now im going no. Do you have opening comments . Im sorry. Im so i do not, mr. Chair. Will go to our first panel who will feature two representatives of the americanl bar association. You may come to the table. Ill start over again. With the Standing Committee on the federal judiciary, Nancy Scott Degan and Shannon Edwards. Nancy deacon 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 standingn the committee of the federal judiciary. Bass and serve 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 you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you godra corrects each answered you affirmatively. We would now have you give youre statement, please. H [inaudible] thank you very much. Its a privilege to be here. I am nancy degan from new orleans, and i am very privileged to chair the American Bar Associations Standing Committee on the federal judiciary. And as you indicated, sen senatr cohen 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 judiciary circuit. They annually volunteer on a pro bono basis hundreds of hours to evaluate nominees to the federal bench. And we focus only on a nominees integrity, professional confidence operatives and judicial temperament. We dont consider their political affiliation,ce. Philosophy or ideology and we do not solicit any information from any nominee with regard to how he might vote on a particular issue or matter that may come before the court. The Standing Committees evaluation of a nomination to the Supreme Court is based upon the premise that a justice must prssess 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 herer respected circuit who may have information regarding the nominees integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. Additionally, Reading Groups of scholars and practitioners review the written work of the Supreme Court nominee and advise the Standing Committee of theird findings. The Reading Groups independently evaluate the nominees analytical ability, knowledge of the law, application of fax to law, expertise and harmonizing the body of law and the ability to communicate effectively. The academic Reading Groups thvolved in judge gorsuch evaluation were composed of experts in the fields from the faculties of the university of Pennsylvania Law School and thee Loyola College of law in new orleans. S. The practitioners Reading Group include nationally recognized lawyers who have argued before lae Supreme Court and serve as law clerks two 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 5000 people nationwide to my knowledge of judge gorsuchs professional qualifications, anm 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 to the dealings with him as a judge, colleague, cocounsel, opposing counsel, teacher, Organization Member and even classmates. We followed judge gorsuchs career from his time at Preparatory School to his tenure on the tenth circuit. All interviews were conducted ie confidence to assure Accurate Information and candid assessment here finally, as we do with every evaluation, we conducted a personal interview with judge gorsuch. Ms. Edwards and i met with him on february 27 and question 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 report of the academic Reading Groups and the practitioners Reading Group. And this report was approximately 1000 pages long. Each member of the Standing Committee then study that final report and individually evaluated judge gorsuch using three possible rating categori categories, qualified, wellqualified, or not p qualified. To merit a Standing Committee rating of wellqualified, a Supreme Court nominee must be ac preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability, and exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the very highest standards of integrity, i or facial competen, and judicial temperament. The rating of wellqualified is reserved for those found to merit the committees strongest affirmative endorsement. Gest having examined judge gorsuch through this lens, the Standing Committee members unanimously coted that he deserved the wellqualified rating. On march 19 we submitted a written statement further explaining our process and ill rating, and we respectfully request that it be made a part of this committees official record. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Edwards is not going to say anything is outright . We are pleased to answer any questions that the committee may have. I think i have a couple questions. They are somewhat repetitive of maybe some of the things that youve said, but id like to add that emphasis. But before i do a short statement, i would like to compliment anybody who serves on evaluating these judges at all levels, and probably at the level Supreme Court is 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 a real seriously. Yes, sir. When you visit with him about the work he does, you almost think its a fulltime job. 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 into it. Its an honor, sir. Sub for both of you i would come to let you of what you do. As you noted in your testimony, the American Bar Association awarded judge gorsuch its highest rating of wellqualified by unanimous vote. The statement explaining the rating states of this, and you said this already but let me repeat it, the rating of wellqualified is reserved for those found to merit the strongest affirmative endorsement. He in other words, a rating of wellqualified is not given lightly. We do agree with that . Absolutely. Now i just want to mention a few points from the report. Want first, the Standing Committee found that, quote, judge gorsuch enjoys an excellent reputation for integrity, and as a 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. In my experience as a judge, i cannot identify a person more a 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 secojudges 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 have beensoy hardpressed 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 discernment is, andnd written clearly, 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 gorsuch demeanor and written opinions during his tenure on the tenth circuit demonstrate that he believes unwaveringly in the law and Judicial Independence. In my opinion, he is exceptionally wellqualified to serve as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I wholeheartedly agree with thee American Bar Associations assessment of judge gorsuch, and i one question, but before i do that i think we have 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 ever in answer to so many questions that somebody wanted either yes or no, what they really got is im going to follow the law, and i believe ig Judicial Independence and following precedent. Now, so i think being a little bit repetitive but this is my last question. 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 that he was a preeminent member of a legal profession, that he has outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, and that he needs 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, ass a cocounsel, as principal depute associate attorney general for the United States, as a private practitioner, as a law clerk for the Supreme Court, and the d. C. Circuit. It and through personal dealings with him, so the scope of our investigation was a deep and broad and involve all 15 members of our Standing Committee in b addition to those 26 professors from those to law schools, and the 14 very well recognized practitioners who have appeared before the United States Supreme Court and to present 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 than 997 pages that were compiled from the interview notes, to the analysis by the law professors and thee practitioners in order to each independently reached that rating on a unanimous basis. Senator cohen if i might add could you turn on your mic . You sure can add. I think for no other reason than all your relatives back home to me or something. [laughing] spend some of them are up pretty early. Mething. Our task was to cast a wide net and authority. So we contacted, make contact with over 5000 individuals. I personally contacted 344, and received comments from 82. So every one of the Committee Members did likewise, and thats what i report as 944 pages long. Now senator feinstein. Thanks very much, mr. Chairman. I want you to know that i very much respect what the american bar does in these events and ive read your reports now forct some 24 years, and very much appreciate your work. Hav let me ask you a question and then i just want to make a comment. Did you review the documents that cover his performance at the department of justice . These are documents that were recently submitted to the committee. When we received our information from the department of justice on which we started our j analysis, what we call that pdq which is actually called the Senate Judiciary question, questionnaire, the responsive to that, we got those on cd rom and we got a stack of materials and there was a supplement. We did not receive the responses that were recently submitted to the committee. I did take a quick look at what that encompassed just from the description on the website of the Senate Judiciary committee and saw that it involved some 170,000 pages. And i sat in some of ms. Edwards and i sat in some of the hearings, and what some of the questions that the Committee Members asked of judge gorsuch, and it appeared from his answers that these materials were prepared in his role as a Principal Deputy associate attorney general, and that he in answering the questions indicated that he was acting as a lawyer. At one point i believe center to come he made asked him about some handwritten note and he said i dont have any independent recollection of that, but if i wrote it is because i got that from my client, he is client being the federal government. We did not have an opportunityty 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 to anyone, that may be protected by we are happy to review that if necessary in order to determine if we need to adjust the rating. But based on what i heard, i dont believe that it would change the opinion of the committee. Ar i appreciate that. And the documents i just want to clear, are not 150,000 pages. The documents im referring to are much smaller in number, maybe a stack like this. But what did indicate are some of his personal thinking on whay subjects of great concern, his namely torture. And 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 q member of this government is held to a different standard than an attorney may be in lifet that if y