Gorsuch Speaks Out Against Trump Comments (Audio)

He has told them he is quote disheartened and quote demoralized by the President's comments. That's according to both lawmakers who met with him and the nominee's spokesman. Here's Nebraska's Republican Senator Ben Sass speaking on MSNBC. This is a guy who kind of welled up with some energy, and he said any attack on any of I think it's termed to me was brothers or sisters of the robe, is an attack on all judges. And he believes that

an independent judiciary. Are gorsages comments strong enough and how will the controversy over Trump's attacks on the judiciary effect his confirmation prospects? Our guests to discuss this are Caroline Frederickson, president of the Progressive American Constitution Society, and Jonathan Adler, law professor at Case Western Reserve Law School. Caroline, when I heard the news yesterday that Gorcers had said he was disheartened and demoralized, my first reaction was to shout out,

in pretty a pretty loud voice, WHOA. What was your first reaction when you heard him say that? Well, yeah, you know, I guess I've been in d C too long. It was a little cynical. Um, I I must say to think that that perhaps he was, uh, that there was an effort to distance himself a little bit from Trump and the attacks on judges in order to ensure

that his confirmation battle would go more smoothly. Um. But of course, you know, he is a sitting federal judge and so UM, you know, I think it is a very uncomfortable position for him to be in, uh, to hear the President saying things that I think are completely out of the norm of what we year from politicians, typically,

at least about federal judges. Um, well, he's in the process of trying to get confirmed, Jonathan, is he being strategic knowing these questions will be asked in confirmation hearings. The a Democratic National Committee spokesman said today, this is clearly a meaningless White House orchestrated attempt to help Judge gorse It's pretend he won't be a rubber stamp for the Trump administration. Well, I mean, look, I think the

comments he made are certainly appropriate. I think they're what you would expect from a federal judge who takes his or her responsibilities seriously and who has concerned for the independence of the judicial branch. Um, you know, based on what I believe we know about Judge gorsuch As record, those sorts of comments coming from the sort of judge that he has been that has shown the independence he has shown throughout his career, is what we would expect.

And um, you know, whether or not the White House knew, who knew who was going to say that or not, it's the sort of thing we would should want and expect a judge in his position to say. And I'm glad that he said those things. But what about the timing of his saying it? You know, when he's seeing

when he's seeing senators and before his confirmation hearings. Well, look, my assumption is that senators have asked these questions in those meetings, and UM, I think it would be unreasonable to expect a judicial nominee to refuse to answer such questions in private meetings. There's nothing inappropriate with the questions, at least as far as what we know of the Given what we know about what was asked, there's nothing there that seems inappropriate to me. Uh. And you know,

senators asked those questions. I can't see how it would be inappropriate for the nominee uh to give the sorts of responses that Judge Corset's reportedly made. Caroline, since you're a little cynical about the comments, is there something more you want you want to hear Judge Corsets say exactly, you know, as Jonathan said, exactly what people want to hear, UM,

what they expect from a sitting judge. But what I think has to happen and is going to happen in the process, is he's going to be expected to speak more um directly about how independent he is. UM. And Uh, you know, apart from his nomination, the President himself has created a situation in which, UM, there is a real need for him to clarify, and we'll go back over the you know, the sort of the circumstances. But I

think certainly the president himself has repeatedly attacked federal judges. UM. He attempts to, you know, not just use the bully pulpit, he actually attempts to just bully. And it seems that he thinks he can get his way in the court

um by um intimidating judges UM. And you know, most recently, as you mentioned, uh with the Ninth Circuit and expected ruling, UM, you know, already sort of uh sort of attacking uh the judges in that case there was Judge Curiel because he was a Mexican Mexican uh origin or from his his parents were Mexican um. And that was the camp during the camp pay in the case about Trump University exactly. And so I think all of that, um, you know, plus is very explicit um statement multiple times during the

campaign and more recently that he has a litmus test um. Uh. You know, I think we'll make the Democratic senators particularly, but I think some of the Republicans will want to push him um to say, you know, how do you feel about those statements repeatedly, the ones that you know they're sort of trying to extract certain outcomes in certain cases as well as the litmus test, And they're gonna want to know that he hasn't sort of made up his mind um on particular cases, that he has the

ability to rule against the president if necessary. They're gonna be a lot of lawsuits against this president. They're already many making their way through the court system, um. And I think they're gonna want to see that he truly is an independent UH judge and will be an independent justice. So does that mean, Jonathan, that there will be so much UH concentration on his independence from the presidency that other things might get lost? Well, certainly, there is a

limited amount of time that UH senators have. The committee hearings will not go on forever um, and it's certainly likely that these questions will be a take up a larger proportion of the discussion in the Judiciary Committee hearings as well as in Judge Gorst's remaining courtesy calls. And

that's what I think we should expect. As Caroline noted, the President has put Judge Gorsch and any future judicial nominees the President has UH in a difficult situation because the President has made comments that suggests that the president's view of the role of the judiciary and the degree of independence that the judicial branch would have is quite different from what we usually expect and demand of our judici. Shire Senator Jeff Sessions is now Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

He was sworn in today after getting Senate confirmation last night on a virtually party line vote. He vowed to make crime fighting and illegal immigration his priorities. Meanwhile, President Trump signed three executive actions directing the Justice Department to intensify its efforts to fight drug related crime and violence against police officers. We're talking with Caroline Frederickson, president of the American Constitution Society, and Jonathan Adler of Case Western

Reserve Law School. Jonathan, this is a very controversial nomination. Um. What are you most interested in seeing UH from Jeff Sessions in the Justice Department? What should we be watching for in the next few weeks and months. Well, there's

there's a lot in there. I mean, certainly, what we should be watching for first and foremost is the extent to which he upholds the commitments he made in the confirmation process UH to basically execute the laws, and to be to run the Justice Department in an independent way in accord with federal laws. Some things that I think we should be paying particular attention to is how he resolves some conflicts between his obligations and perhaps some of

his personal views. UM. One issue that's been the Justice Department is dealt with in some respects struggled with over the last several years is how to deal with the fact that quite a number of states have either partially or completely legalized the position and use of marijuana within their states. UM, while marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

Just Sessions has been a supporter of the drug war generally, UH supported the probation of marijuana, but has also, especially as Attorney General of Alabama, was was a big advocate of getting states greater flexibility UH and and endorsing federals and principles more broadly. UH areas like what to do about marijuana put those two preferences in conflict, and it's an example of the sort of thing I think we should be watching because we're not quite sure what direction

he's going to go. In Caroline, federal judges granted a Justice Department request to delay an initially hearing on a police reformer Green meant with the Baltimore Police Department that was made by the former Attorney general, and during his hearing, Sessions would only say that deals that had been accepted by judges would have to be ended by the judge. What with the law and order stance that Trump and Sessions are known for, what is likely to happen to

that agreement? Could it be scuffled? Well, I mean, it certainly seems like that's what they're trying to do. Uh, you know, I think it's very unfortunate because when you have something like the Baltimore agreement, which was the product of a long long process, uh back and forth with the police department, with the Justice Department. UM, the community is obviously very much affected by how this works out. I think it's very unfortunate that all of that work

is going to be potentially thrown out. Um. You know, I think, you know, and would hope that, uh, you know, where where there has been you know, deep engagement by the community, we don't have this UM federal agency sort of deciding to reconsider all that input and go back to square one. Jonathan Donald Trump's approach towards things involving the law have been UH. Chaotic might be a good word, UM. And you know, in terms of things like the rollout of the UM, the the travel ban, UM and various

other things. Would you imagine that Jeff Sessions will his confirmation will impose a little more order in terms of how the administration goes about legal issues. I certainly hope so. And if one looks at the people that have been identified for some of the other positions in the Justice Department,

I do think there is cause for some optimism. UM. Folks like Rachel Brandon Rod Rosenstein, who have been identified for the number two and number three spots at the Justice Department UM are very well regarded UH and I think will certainly help or should certainly help some some more order to what the Justice Department does. And I would hope to the way legal questions are dealt with

more broadly in the administration. It's always hard at the beginning of a new administration UH to to keep everything UH running and to deal with the necessary cast of transition, because you don't have your people in place, you don't have the people in position to make your decisions folks that are holdovers from the prior administration might not agree with your agenda. The career UH folks might not agree with your agenda or might not really understand what it is.

And so generally, as you you can put your people in place, you have greater ability to to bring some consistency and focus to your administration's operations. I want to thank our guests. That was Jonathan Adler, professor at Case Western Reserve Law School, and Caroline Frederickson, who is the president of the Progressive American Constitution Society. Coming up, one of the things Donald Trump has done is an executive order that says agencies have to eliminate two regulations for

every new one they put in place. And there's now a legal challenge to that. We'll talk about that on Bloomberg Law. This is Bloomberg h