Donald Trump picks Neil Gorsuch as his supreme court nomination - as it happened (2024)

• President Donald Trump has announced Judge Neil Gorsuch – a staunch conservative – as his nominee for the vacant ninth seat on the supreme court bench.
• Calling Gorsuch “a man who our country really needs, and needs badly, to ensure the rule of law” in the spirit of the late Antonin Scalia, whose seat he would take if confirmed, Trump said his pick would enjoy “tremendous bipartisan support”.
• An “honored and humbled” Gorsuch said judges should strive for “impartiality and independence, collegiality and courage”, adding:

A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge.

• Republicans rushed to praise the nomination, with Speaker Paul Ryan calling it a “phenomenal” choice, and vice-president Mike Pence labelling Gorsuch:
  

one of the most mainstream, respected, and exceptionally qualified supreme court nominees in American history.

• Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Trump had made an “outstanding decision”, warning:

I hope members of the Senate will … show him fair consideration and respect the result of the recent election with an up-or-down vote on his nomination.

• But in a sign that the Senate could be heading for a filibuster, some Democrats – many of whom were keen to jog memories of the Republican block on Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland – said they would not support Gorsuch.
• Senator Elizabeth Warren said the judge’s rulings against workers and “hostility” towards women’s access to healthcare meant she would not vote for him. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, called the nomination “a very bad decision”.
• Chuck Schumer, the minority leader in the Senate, said Gorsuch must reach the 60-vote “super-majority” – “a bar that was met by each of President Obama’s nominees” – in a Senate where Republicans hold 52 seats to the Democrats’ 48:

The burden is on Judge Neil Gorsuch to prove himself to be within the legal mainstream … Given his record, I have very serious doubts about Judge Gorsuch’s ability to meet this standard.

Read more

• Full story: Neil Gorsuch nominated by Donald Trump to fill supreme court vacancy
• Opinion: Why Democrats should hold the line and filibuster against Neil Gorsuch

Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior adviser to President Obama, is not the only person to be querying why Trump’s sons Eric and Don Jr – who now, according to their father, have “complete and total control” of his businesses, in a much-criticised attempt to answer questions over conflicts of interest – were present at the White House for the Scotus announcement today:

Google says these were the most frequently searched questions about the new Scotus nominee in the two hours after his name was announced by Trump.

The age question is interesting: he’s 49, the youngest nominee in 25 years.

And on the last point, should any reader be considering a job switch: it’s US$244,000 (£194,000) a year.

Gorsuch, like late Justice Scalia, describes himself as a strict textualist in his interpretation of the constitution.

His biggest difference with Scalia comes in the field of administrative law, an area that is sleepy for most lay people but determines the scope of much government action.

The Trump nominee has been a critic of “Chevron deference”, a doctrine that gives administrative agencies significant latitude with how they interpret federal statutes. His views, which are shared by a number of conservative legal scholars, would significantly weaken the federal government and allow the courts to override agency actions on issues ranging from immigration to healthcare to the environment.

Associated Press reports that the White House is “planning a major outreach effort” to secure Gorsuch’s confirmation to the supreme court:

Press secretary Sean Spicer says the White House is planning a series of briefings with House and Senate staff about Trump’s pick.

Gorsuch is expected to travel on Wednesday to Capitol Hill to begin meetings with lawmakers, including Senate judiciary committee members.

Spicer says the White House is “going to work really, really hard” to get Trump’s pick confirmed.

And here are some of those judiciary committee members preparing themselves:

Obligatory Trump tweet:

The addition of Gorsuch is unlikely to tip the balance of the court, the logic goes, given that he looks to be an almost perfect ideological replacement for the late conservative stalwart Scalia. But the notion that Democrats should hold their fire in case Trump has the opportunity to fill another, more pivotal, seat down the road is naive given recent history.

It’s not an inconceivable or even unlikely scenario that Trump will have such an opportunity. But Democrats would be fools to stand down now in hopes that Republicans, admiring their magnanimity and bipartisan spirit would somehow reward them at some unspecified future date.

Caving to Trump’s interests without a fight would take a wind out of the sails of the nascent resistance movement rocking our country. And if there’s one thing we’ve learned under Obama’s tenure and over the course of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, it’s that, at least in this political climate, playing nice and hoping you’ll be rewarded down the road is a fool’s errand.

Here’s where fivethirtyeight puts Gorsuch on the liberal/conservative scale of the supreme court bench (you’ll find him to the right):

Speaker Paul Ryan, I think, takes the prize for most effusive response to Gorsuch’s nomination, calling him a “phenomenal” pick:

President Trump has fulfilled his pledge to nominate a judge who has a demonstrated loyalty to the constitution and a strong commitment to life. He is a phenomenal nominee for the supreme court.

His belief in judicial restraint will serve the court – and the country – very well. I also commend his career-long fight to uphold the constitutional right of religious liberty.

I am confident my colleagues in the Senate will confirm Judge Gorsuch.

Courtesy of the New York Times, here’s new Scotus nominee Neil Gorsuch on the “gross mistreatment” of judicial confirmations by the Senate:

In a 2002 article … Mr. Gorsuch criticized the Senate’s handling of judicial confirmations. “Some of the most impressive judicial nominees are grossly mistreated,” he said, mentioning two candidates for the federal appeals court in Washington who he said were “widely considered to be among the finest lawyers of their generation”.

One was John G Roberts Jr, who went on to become chief justice of the United States. The other was Judge Merrick B Garland, who was confirmed to the appeals court in 1997 after a long delay, but whose nomination to the supreme court last year was blocked by Senate Republicans.

Senator Tim Kaine – Hillary Clinton’s would-be VP pick – is biding his time on a yes or no for Gorsuch:

The importance of an appointment to the highest court in the land and the duty of upholding and defending our constitution demand a higher threshold for confirmation than for any other appointee.

The actions of the Trump administration over the past week raise the stakes to an even higher level.

In considering Judge Gorsuch’s nomination and observing his confirmation hearing, I intend to carefully scrutinize his temperament and record, particularly on civil rights and other constitutional guarantees.

A short walk from the White House, protesters gathered on the steps of the supreme court to demand that Democratic senators block the appointment of Gorsuch.

A coalition of liberal groups had planned the rally in advance of Trump’s announcement to spotlight the opposition to appointing a nominee who is conservative and who Trump said would repeal Roe v Wade, a decision legalizing abortion in the US.

At the protest, Eleanor Smeal, head of the Feminist Majority, said Gorsuch was “the worst nightmare” for women and minorities who have worked to advance civil and equal rights, and called the justice’s adherence to originalism an “abomination” that would take the country back hundreds of years:

We will not go back. We’ve worked too hard …

There is no way we’re returning to a 1789 interpretation of the constitution.

Republican senators from all wings of the party enthused about the choice.

“There’s nothing not to like about Neil Gorsuch,” said Jeff Flake of Arizona. Even more enthusiastic praise came from Ben Sasse of Nebraska who told the Guardian that Gorsuch “is the kind of person that the founders envisioned sitting on the supreme court”.

Republicans unanimously dismissed any lingering hard feelings from the Senate’s refusal to hold hearings on Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee for the seat.

“I think that’s a bogus argument” said Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. “I thought it was a bit unfair when you look through the history of the country when a vacancy occurs in the last year of a sitting president and the primary process is almost over … If that’s the reason they use, it’s a bogus reason.”

Others thought that Trump’s victory in November was the ultimate appeal to authority. As Ted Cruz told reporters after the announcement, the election “was a referendum on the supreme court and the direction it would go … the choice was given to the people and we the people spoke overwhelmingly.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren says she will oppose the nomination of Gorsuch:

President Trump had the chance to select a consensus nominee to the Supreme Court. To the surprise of absolutely nobody, he failed that test.

Warren says she has “reviewed in detail” Gorsuch’s public record:

Before even joining the bench, he advocated to make it easier for public companies to defraud investors. As a judge, he has twisted himself into a pretzel to make sure the rules favor giant companies over workers and individual Americans. He has sided with employers who deny wages, improperly fire workers, or retaliate against whistleblowers for misconduct. He has ruled against workers in all manner of discrimination cases. And he has demonstrated hostility toward women’s access to basic health care.

For years, powerful interests have executed a full-scale assault on the integrity of our federal judiciary, trying to turn the supreme court into one more rigged game that works only for the rich and the powerful. They spent millions to keep this seat open, and Judge Gorsuch is their reward …

Based on the long and well-established record of Judge Gorsuch, I will oppose his nomination.

Some Democrats had pledged to filibuster Trump’s pick, in part out of retaliation for the Republicans’ refusal last year to consider the nomination of circuit court judge Merrick Garland, Obama’s selection to replace Scalia. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell argued at the time that it would be inappropriate for a departing president – 11 months remained in Obama’s term – to make such a significant and long-term appointment.

But many Democrats are wary to appear obstructionist despite mounting pressure from the liberal base to oppose any Trump nominee.

Under current Senate rules, which require 60 votes for a supreme court confirmation, Gorsuch would need to win the support of multiple Democrats, who count 48 Senate caucus members to the Republicans’ 52.

If the Democrats follow through with a filibuster, however, those rules could change. The previous Democratic leadership of the Senate changed the rules to require fewer votes for the confirmation of most executive nominees, and the current Republican leadership could make an additional change to the rules. McConnell earlier had vowed to confirm Trump’s nominee.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer downplayed the looming threat of an all-consuming political brawl over Trump’s nominee, telling reporters on Tuesday that he believed the Senate would reach the 60-vote threshold required to confirm supreme court appointees.

Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, tells CNN Trump has made “a very bad decision”.

He has appointed someone who has come down on the side of corporate America … He comes down on the side of felons over gun safety.

[He is] hostile to women’s reproductive rights …

Pelosi says Gorsuch is “hostile to children”, ruling that children with autism are not entitled to protections for disabled children.

She says it’s the prerogative of the Senate to confirm Gorsuch or not:

Where we’d like them to come down is to make sure that this confirmation subjects the candidate to the strongest scrutiny when it comes to honoring the constitution of the United States.

Ben Sasse – the conservative Republican senator for Nebraska who didn’t vote for Trump in November – is having a little fun with his statement (although the qualifying “hogwash” suggests he wants to be sure we don’t take the hyperbole seriously):

Neil Gorsuch is a highly-regarded jurist with a record of distinguished service, rooted in respect for the law. He was confirmed unanimously by Democrats and Republicans.

Senator Schumer is about to tell Americans that Judge Gorsuch kicks puppies and heckles piano recitals. That’s hogwash.

Democrats are working overtime to cast Judge Gorsuch as a reflexive partisan but, as I said when Justice Scalia died, there are no Republican or Democratic seats on the supreme court. This shouldn’t be a partisan debate but an opportunity to teach our kids civics.

In the coming weeks, everyone who loves the constitution should celebrate the uniquely American idea that government power must be limited and that those in power must be checked and balanced.

Sensing some sarcasm from the Democratic representative for California:

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell says Trump has made an “outstanding decision”, saying Gorsuch has:

a long record of faithfully applying the law and the constitution.

McConnell notes that Gorsuch was confirmed by voice vote in the Senate in 2006:

I hope members of the Senate will again show him fair consideration and respect the result of the recent election with an up-or-down vote on his nomination, just like the Senate treated the four first-term nominees of presidents Clinton and Obama.

(But not like Obama’s second-term nominee Merrick Garland, he might have added, but didn’t.)

I don’t believe he’s tweeting from it himself, but Neil Gorsuch has a new verified Twitter account: @GorsuchFacts.

The bio reads:

Judge Gorsuch will be fair to all regardless of their background or beliefs. This is exactly the kind of #SCOTUS Justice @POTUS promised. #JusticeGorsuch

Gorsuch’s track record as a judge on the US court of appeals for the 10th circuit does not shed obvious light on how he might rule as a supreme court justice on hot-button topics such as abortion and marriage equality. He is the author of a book about euthanasia in which he writes, “to act intentionally against life is to suggest that its value rests only on its transient instrumental usefulness for other ends”.

Ideological strands running through Gorsuch’s appeals court rulings would seem likely to endear him to congressional Republicans and Trump’s conservative base. He has shown himself to be solicitous to claims of religious exemptions from the law, to gun rights claims and to the prosecution of death penalty cases.

During Trump’s announcement, Gorsuch addressed the crowd briefly, declaring himself “honored and humbled” and promising to be a “faithful servant to the constitution and laws of this great country” and paying tribute to the principles of partiality, independence, collegiality and courage.

“A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge,” Gorsuch said, “stretching” for rulings he desires instead of reading the law on the page.

Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader in the Senate, says Gorsuch must also be subject to the 60-vote “super-majority” rule – “a bar that was met by each of President Obama’s nominees” – rather than a simple majority confirmation:

The burden is on Judge Neil Gorsuch to prove himself to be within the legal mainstream and, in this new era, willing to vigorously defend the constitution from abuses of the executive branch and protect the constitutionally enshrined rights of all Americans.

Given his record, I have very serious doubts about Judge Gorsuch’s ability to meet this standard.

A dissenting voice comes from Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, the minority leader of the Senate committee on the judiciary.

Leahy says:

In light of the unconstitutional actions of our new president in just his first week, the Senate owes the American people a thorough and unsparing examination of this nomination …

President Trump said he would appoint justices who would overturn 40 years of jurisprudence established in Roe v Wade. Judge Gorsuch has shown a willingness to limit women’s access to healthcare that suggests the president is making good on that promise …

I question whether Judge Gorsuch meets the high standard set by Merrick Garland.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz is also a happy man:

Vice-president Mike Pence is on board:

“Mainstream” is an interesting choice of word – a challenge to Democrats who had signalled the possibility of blocking or slowing any confirmation of a Trump pick.

“Impartiality and independence, collegiality and courage” is what is expected of judges, Gorsuch says.

A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge.

He says he will speak to people on both sides ahead of his confirmation.

He says his family, friends and faith keep him grounded, and thanks them. His wife Louise is standing beside him at the lectern.

Gorsuch winds up by saying he is honored and humbled, and thanks Trump.

President Donald Trump has nominated circuit court judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacant seat on the US supreme court, setting up a showdown with congressional Democrats and activists over a pick that could shape the ideological bent of the court for a generation.

Gorsuch, 49, the youngest supreme court nominee in 25 years, was among a group of federal judges reported in recent weeks to be on Trump’s shortlist. A strict adherent of judicial restraint known for sharply-written opinions and bedrock conservative views, Gorsuch, a Colorado native, is popular among his peers and is seen as having strong backing among Republicans generally.

The nomination landed at a moment of sharply-increasing alarm that the Trump administration plans to pursue extremist policies on core questions likely to come before the court, from religious equality to abortion rights to campaign finance, voting rights, access to healthcare, marriage equality, anti-discrimination protections and more.

Trump’s nominee has the potential to tip the court one way or the other on those questions. If confirmed, Gorsuch would return the court to nine justices, filling a seat left vacant since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016.

Gorsuch says the president and his team “have shown me great courtesy in this process”.

He says he is “acutely aware of my own imperfections”.

While in law school Gorsuch developed a reputation for helping the less fortunate, Trump says.

He could have had any job at any law firm with any amount of money … He wanted to make an impact.

He is a man who our country really needs, and needs badly, to ensure the rule of law.

Trump says Gorsuch has “tremendous bipartisan support”.

“Was that a surprise, was it?” the president asks the audience of his pick. (It’s not clear what the answer is supposed to be.)

Trump says Gorsuch is the “ultimate” representative of the late Justice Scalia.

Trump’s autocue might have scooped his own announcement:

The president comes to the lectern to applause.

He begins by saying that he had promised to “find the very best judge in the country for the supreme court … who loves our constitution”.

He says this “may be the most transparent” selection process in history.

Here’s frontrunner Neil Gorsuch speaking last year on finding out that Antonin Scalia had died:

A few weeks ago, I was taking a breather in the middle of a ski run with little on my mind but the next mogul field when my phone rang with the news.

I immediately lost what breath I had left, and I am not embarrassed to admit that I couldn’t see the rest of the way down the mountain for the tears.

From that moment it seemed clear to me there was no way I could give a speech about the law at this time without reference to that news.

There’s quite the gathering in the East Room of the White House for the unveiling of Trump’s pick:

Ted Cruz is also in the room.

As we wait for the Scotus announcement – in around 15 minutes from now – Reuters has news of some separate White House nominations:

President Donald Trump will nominate US attorney Rod Rosenstein to be deputy attorney general, the White House said on Tuesday, one day after Trump fired the acting attorney general Sally Yates for refusing to enforce an immigration order.

The White House also said Trump will nominate Rachel Brand to be associate attorney general and Steven Engel to be an assistant attorney general, filling senior positions as the justice department awaits Senate confirmation of Jeff Sessions to be attorney general.

If Trump was hoping for wall-to-wall reality TV-style coverage of this announcement – which is usually a more solemn, dignified affair – he’s getting it. US major broadcast networks are expected to cover live the unveiling of his supreme court pick.

But it’s possible that we won’t see an Apprentice-style final face-off, with unconfirmed reports now emerging that only one contender (presumably the successful one) has made it to the White House:

Hardiman, 51, of Pennsylvania, sits on the third circuit court of appeals, to which he was appointed by Bush in 2007. A former district court judge, Hardiman graduated from Georgetown law school in Washington. If nominated and confirmed, he would be the only supreme court justice without an Ivy League law degree.

He has advanced conservative interpretations, particularly in “law and order” cases touching on issues such as sentencing guidelines, the death penalty, the right to film police and second amendment issues.

In one case, Hardiman questioned whether the first amendment protected people who videotaped police during a traffic stop.

“We conclude there was insufficient case law establishing a right to videotape police officers during a traffic stop to put a reasonably competent officer on ‘fair notice’ that seizing a camera or arresting an individual for videotaping police during the stop would violate the First Amendment,” Hardiman wrote.

Gorsuch, 49, was appointed in 2006 by Bush to the 10th circuit court of appeals, in Denver, Colorado, and is a frequent member of Republican-leaning supreme court shortlists. He is the youngest entry on Trump’s reported shortlist.

His only book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, was intended to bolster the case against its legalization; its publisher called it his central thesis “the idea that human life is intrinsically valuable and that intentional killing is always wrong”. In 2012, Michael Fragoso, a longtime anti-abortion advocate and current counsel to Arizona senator Jeff Flake, called Gorsuch and other young Bush-era judicial appointees “as good a college of judicial cardinals as the conservative and pro-life movements have ever seen”.

Gorsuch has notably used his time on the federal bench to criticize the existing volume of federal regulation as potentially unconstitutional on a variety of grounds, a point he has made in at least one public speech as well. He is a graduate of Harvard law school.

What has Trump said about his process for picking a supreme court nominee?

He promised his choice would be a “truly great” justice who is “pro-life”.

Earlier this month he told told Republicans:

I think in my mind I know who it is. I think you’re going to be very, very excited.

By Sunday – amid ongoing protests against the travel ban on visitors from seven Muslim-majority countries and a block on refugees – he had apparently made up his mind:

President Donald Trump will shortly announce his pick for the supreme court vacancy created by the death of staunchly conservative justice Antonin Scalia in February last year.

Such nominations are rarely without controversy, of course: Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the same vacancy in March 2016, warning Republicans that any delays in confirming his appointment would cause a loss of faith in the supreme court, the justice system and democracy. Garland did not become a supreme court judge.

But tonight’s announcement takes the circus to a new level: both presumed finalists – though let’s not assume there is no Trump joker card waiting to be played – have reportedly been summoned to the White House for a live broadcast announcement at 8pm ET, during which the president will tell one of the pair that he is hired.

It is not clear whether Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman, judges in Colorado and Pennsylvania respectively, themselves know who is to be handed the prize. Perhaps they will find out with the rest of us – though leaked reports suggest Gorsuch is the frontrunner.

We’ll have everything here on the live blog as it unfolds.