You're listening to Bloomberg Law. The next time Neil Gorcich speaks in public, he may be taking his oath as a Supreme Court justice. He finished his Senate confirmation testimony yesterday and Democrats must now decide whether to try to block a vote on the Senate floor. With Republicans in control of the chamber, that looks to be an uphill fight. Republicans are hoping to get him confirmed in time for the last Supreme Court arguments of the term during the
last two weeks of April. With us to talk about Neil Gorcich is Raphael Mangui, Project manager for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute, and Michelle Jowondo, Vice president of Legal Process Progress at the Center for American Progress UM. Michelle, judge Gorcich clearly isn't somebody that Democrats would have nominated. He's a conservative, but there are a lot of legal conservatives in this country. Is there any evidence he is
outside the mainstream? Well, first off, thank you so much for having me, and I'm actually calling you from UM the Senate Heart Building we where we are preparing to
head back into UM. The last few witness panels of his nomination UM, I have the pleasure and the privilege of working on two other Supreme Court nominations that have judged so Mayor and Kagan, and I will say this, While we recognize that each president has their own prerogative to put forth UM whoever UH their nominee would be, I think it's important to recognize that the kind of
process of selecting the Supreme Court nominee has consequences. I think what's very different about this moment is the backdrop in which neal force is being put forth. You know, for the first time in history we had we saw a nominee from President Obama not received a hearing, and in some cases wasn't even given the courtesy of meeting.
You saw a president who has constantly shown his disdain not just for UH individual judges, but for the role of judges in the judiciary large, particularly when it comes
to a number of his policies. And for the first time ever, we saw in some way this process was farmed out to to what I think many people would consider UM conservative more right wing organizations who selected the names of the people who would be considered Rafael Judge gorse It refused to answer questions on anything concerning his
legal views or personal convictions. Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman has written a Bloomberg View column today saying, ethically, there's nothing wrong with the nominee speaking about Supreme Court precedent or issues that might come before the Court in the future, unless the nominee combed did specifically on the facts of a particular case. Do you agree with Professor Feilman, Well, no,
I think I disagree a little bit um. You know, while it may not necessarily be a violation of the law, I think judicial ethics require judges to approach whatever cases they might that might come before them neutrally, and I don't think that it would be proper for a judge nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court to make comments or predictions about how he or she is going to rule in cases that haven't even come before him yet.
And so I think what Neil Gorst was trying to say throughout the course of the hearing, whenever he was asked to comment on what he would say in this or that situation, it was really just that at the end of the day, these are the principles of judging to which I subscribe and depending on the fact of the case and the arguments made in that particular case. You know, I will apply those principles neutrally, and I think that's the best you can ever asks a Supreme
Court justice to do. I would be troubled if he were you to to opine on on the specifics of how he might rule in one situation or another ahead of time. He refused to even talk about cases of a Supreme Court. There is no ethical rule, is there against No, that don't there's there's no other rule that prevents him from talking about cases before the Supreme Court.
But he you know, he actually went through several of the precedents um that the Supreme Court has decided, explained them, you know, in response to the questions, and explained how he would approach applying those presidents. I mean, yeah, I think he actually did do a pretty good job of of explaining how he felt about those those cases. Michelle.
One thing that Judge Gorcer has pointed out on several occasions, he had said, if you don't like this or that Supreme Court decision in many cases, not all, but many, Congress has the power to change the law. So, you know, voting rights mandatory arbitration clauses. Isn't the real problem for people who oppose his nomination at the ballot box rather
than rather than the courts? Well, without question, you know, we in this democracy have the ability to select who our representatives are, and if there are issues, we can use that as an opportunity to make the distinction of what we would prefer in seeing actualized. But what's very important to recognize as we consider or the three different separation of power and the branches, the coequal branches of government.
If a legislator passes a piece of legislation and that legislation is then challenged, it will end up before the court. And if it is an extremely complex and difficult question to consider, then that issue will then end up before the Supreme Court. And that's why who sits on the Supreme Court matters, because it is not a robotic exercise that one one piece of legislation will sit for time immemorial. If it's a really difficult question, it will end up
before our court. And that's why who sits on the Court and their interpretation of the Constitution in the way that you interpret that law using the text, as using the text of the concerts as your based documents. That's why it is so important that we consider all of these factors. You're listening to Bloomberg Law. As he finished his Supreme Court confirmation testimony yesterday, Neil Gorcer's left the
Senators as divided as he found them. Democrats Sheldon white House said he saw a pattern on the Supreme Court of Republican appointed justices favoring corporate interests at the expense of average people. Of course, it's pushed back. I'm distressed to hear you think that judges or the Supreme Court is an organ of a party. That to me is just I know you feel that way, and that distresses me. It distresses me too, And I just don't wait a lot.
I just don't see judging that way. Our guests to talk about Neil Gorcer, Raphael Mangua of the Manhattan Institute and Michelle Jrondo of the Center for American Progress. Raphael Judges love saying they're not politicians in robes. But don't we basically know that on the large majority of of the important cases, the cases that you know, people pay attention to at the Supreme Court Just Justice, cortious course, Hitch is going to vote the way most Republicans would like.
I mean, I don't think that's that's actually that obvious. I mean, if you look at Judge Corse's record, I think he'd surprise a lot of people, particularly on the left, insofar as he's actually very much a friend to criminal defendants, UM and and religious minorities when you know, when applying the religious freedom restoration. Actually I don't think it's necessarily um you know laid out in Stone how he's going to rule in a particular case. Now, as a conservative,
you know you can expect him to apply originalism. And the nice thing about originalism is that, irrespective of the judge's views, if you apply it correctly, you can kind of guess how they're going to rule on a particular statute statutory interpretation issue. But that that that doesn't necessarily mean that he's ideologically motivated. I mean his ideology. I
think UM values a certain system of judging. In that system of judging, I believe this is one of the most neutral, if not the most neutral, that you can apply, so you know, to the extended that you get consistent results. I don't think it's a function of ideological drive. Michelle. Justice Scalia also diverged from strict conservative is in certain respects involving police cases. UM. In any other ways, can we expect Judge Gorcis to divert from the conservative viewpoint?
You know? I think if we like, take for instance, his his authors on hobby Lobby, which was later affirmed by the Supreme Court. But I will say at the time it was what many considered a radical reading of looking at the roof for laws the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I think many people interpret that as connected to a pattern UM that is particularly hostile and its approach to
women's issues or issues around reproductive rights. And though he hasn't ruled directly on the issue of abortion, I think many people tend to believe that there is a pattern that has emerged, both in his treatment on that issue as well as even yesterday the Supreme Court, in an eight a ruling UM rejected a theory that he put forth around the individuals with disability that and the Chief Justice actually authored that opinion in saying that the standard
that Judge Gorsage used was incorrect. And so I think that there are a number of issues where there are good reasons why you have seen people on a less rays concern about him joining the court. And I think it's important to also recognize that these hearings are the only opportunity that individuals have to examine a judicial philosophy of an individual, and that's why they should be more than just a, um, a simple audition. In some ways,
we should have a sense of who you are. This is not four years with the president, but this is actually forty years UM, and it's really important to recognize that. Raphael, I want to spend just a minute talking about the confirmation process. Do you see any realistic chance that Neil Gorcitch will not be confirmed to the Supreme Court? No,
I don't. UM. You know, Chuck Shumer made some noise on the Senate floor earlier today, you know, saying indicating that that, um, the judge would need sixty votes to get through. And if that's really the case, I think you'll get it. Um. You know, at some point the Republicans will have to, you know, confront the fact that they have an option open to them if the Democrats do filibuster, and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't take it if that, If that's necessary, and Michelle
what's your opinion on that. Well, I think it's unfortunate. As someone who would consider herself a Senate traditionalist, I don't think we should get in the habit of blowing up a hundred year old rules. I think if there's actually an issue, isn't able to get sixty votes, we should change the nominee and not change the rules that have um conducted our behavior or on high Court nomineeds for time immemorial. I think it would be another really
low blow for the Senate. It only drives further partisanship UM here in the nation's capital. But Michelle, do you see any chance that the Democrats might might succeed if they do do block a vote? Um? Or should we just assume it's going to be Justice Corsage? You know, I don't think we should ever make any assumptions um. I think November eight, twenties six speaking taught us bet. But I don't think without uh that it is a
definite that Judge Corsage will be on the court. I think a number of Senators, including Senator Casey and Senator Schumer as the minority leader, coming out today strongly that is a signal to other people in the caucus, and I'm not quite sure that he has the vote needs, so I think we should all stay tuned to see what happens next. Okay, let's definitely stay tuned, and I
want to thank our guests. That was Michelle Jawando of the Center for American Progress and Raphael Manguel of the Manhattan Institute talking about uh Neil Gorcich and his confirmation hearing which is concluding today with some outside witnesses talking about him. And then the next step will be the Senate floor. Coming up, what does the Westminster attack tell
us about the United Kingdom's vulnerability to terrorists? And we'll talk about something else that happened with the Supreme Court yesterday, a new ruling involving cheerleading uniforms, and the Supreme Court bolsters legal protections for pictures and graphic designs. That's all coming up on Bloomberg Law. This is Bloomberg