Trump’s Supreme Court nominee opens his testimony with a massive falsehood

Ian Millhiser

Ian Millhiser Senior Constitutional Policy Analyst, Think Progress

Judges, if you believe Trump Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, are politically interchangeable parts. “There’s no such thing as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge,” Gorsuch said very early in the second day of his confirmation hearing on Tuesday. And he returned to this theme repeatedly in his testimony, denying that he is even permitted to opine on matters of politics — most notably to insist that he could not comment on whether President Obama’s nominee for the vacant Supreme Court seat was treated fairly.

It’s a very pleasant idea, this notion that judges put on a black robe and magically become nonpolitical actors. And, in fairness, it is a falsehood that Democratic and Republican nominees both like to repeat at their confirmation hearings. Gorsuch is hardly the first nominee to make a similar claim.

But his claim that judges are not political is transparently false. If it wasn’t false, Senate Republicans would have simply confirmed Chief Judge Merrick Garland — Obama’s nominee to fill the seat Gorsuch now hopes to fill. After all, why should senators care which president appoints our judges if a Democratic judge is interchangeable with a Republican judge?

Indeed, there’s plenty of data showing that the senators who kept Garland off the Supreme Court were correct in their view that politics matter.

In 2014, for example, the conservative Washington Times examined how judges appointed by Democratic or Republican presidents decided cases seeking to undermine the Affordable Care Act. The data was stark. “Democratic appointees ruled in favor of Obamacare more than 90 percent of the time, while Republican appointees ruled against it nearly 80 percent of the time.”

More scholarly studies confirm the central role ideology plays in judicial decisions. As scholars Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn, and Jeffrey A. Sega summarized the dominant view among political scientists in 2011, “political scientists see judges as attempting to maximize their ideological preferences by bringing the law in line with their own political commitments.”

Epstein and her colleagues also conducted their own empirical research into how a judge’s political views impact their conduct on the bench, and determined that “a strong relationship exists between ideology and votes” (on the Supreme Court, their data indicates a “correlation of .79.”)

To be sure, this does not mean that many judges decide individual cases based solely on which side their political party would like to see prevail. Gorsuch, for example, used a case involving a horribly mistreated immigrant as an opportunity to opine on why he would like to transfer power from agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency to the judiciary — a top priority for many conservative legal groups. Judges work with broad doctrines, not with fine scalpels, and a liberal doctrine will sometimes benefit a conservative party, or vice-versa.

But there’s no meaningful support for the idea that judges are immune from politics.

***

This was reposted from Think Progress.

Ian Millhiser is a Senior Constitutional Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and the Editor of ThinkProgress Justice. He received a B.A. in Philosophy from Kenyon College and a J.D., magna cum laude, from Duke University. Ian clerked for Judge Eric L. Clay of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and has worked as an attorney with the National Senior Citizens Law Center’s Federal Rights Project, as Assistant Director for Communications with the American Constitution Society, and as a Teach For America teacher in the Mississippi Delta. His writings have appeared in a diversity of legal and mainstream publications, including the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, U.S. News and World Report, Slate, the Guardian, the American Prospect, the Yale Law and Policy Review and the Duke Law Journal; and he has been a guest on CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera English, Fox News and many radio shows.

Posted In: Allied Approaches

Union Matters

Labor Wins

From the AFL-CIO

On Tuesday, the labor movement drove historic wins for pro-worker candidates like Governor-Elect Andy Beshear in Kentucky and new legislative majorities in Virginia. Not only did union members come out to vote in droves, 270 union member candidates were elected to public office last night and counting. This adds to the total of more than 900 union members elected up and down the ballot in last year’s midterms, a product of the Union Member Candidate Program launched by the AFL-CIO just two years ago. The share of union members who won in the 2018 midterms is two-thirds. The program will continue through 2020 and beyond, electing even more union members to public office. 

“Our efforts recruiting, training and supporting labor candidates have led to the passage of pro-worker legislation from coast to coast and everywhere in between,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said.

***

More ...

There is Dignity in All Work

There is Dignity in All Work