Schumer’s Shifting Standards

THEN: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Praised Judge Sonia Sotomayor For Hewing ‘Carefully To The Text Of Statutes, Even When Doing So Results In Rulings That Go Against So-Called Sympathetic Litigants’

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “…Judge Sotomayor puts rule of law above everything else… Sotomayor has hewed carefully to the text of statutes, even when doing so results in rulings that go against so-called sympathetic litigants.” (U.S. Senate, Judiciary Committee, Confirmation Hearing For Sonia Sotomayor, P.25, 7/13-16/2009)

• SCHUMER: “…her record shows that she is in the mainstream. ...she has ruled for the government in 83 percent of immigration cases against the immigration plaintiff, she has ruled for the government in 92 percent of criminal cases, she has denied race claims in 83 percent of cases. ... In a case brought by plaintiffs who claimed they had been bumped from a plane because of race, she dismissed their case because the law required it, Judge Sotomayor has hewed carefully to the text of statutes, even when doing so results in rulings that go against so-called sympathetic litigants. In dissenting from an award of damages to injured plaintiffs in a maritime accident, she wrote, ‘we start with the assumption that it is for Congress, not the federal courts, to articulate the appropriate standards to be applied as a matter of federal law.’” (U.S. Senate, Judiciary Committee, Confirmation Hearing For Sonia Sotomayor, P.25, 7/13-16/2009)

NOW: Sen. Schumer Embraces ‘So-Called Sympathetic Litigants’

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “Judge Gorsuch is not the kind of nominee who has sympathy and helps average Americans when it comes to judging in the law.” (Sen. Schumer, Floor Remarks, 3/15/17)

NOW CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: ‘The Oath That A Judge Takes Is Not That I Will Look Out For Particular Interests … The Oath Is To Uphold The Constitution And Laws Of The United States’

NOW CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS: “I had someone ask me in this process – I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that I will look out for particular interests, I’ll be on the side of particular interests. The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that’s I would do.” (U.S. Senate, Judiciary Committee, Confirmation Hearing For John G. Roberts, Pg.448, 9/12-15/2005)

LIBERAL HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR: ‘Justices … Shouldn’t Decide Cases Based On Who The Parties Are’

NOAH FELDMAN, Liberal Harvard Law Professor: “…the thing is, siding with workers against employers isn’t a jurisprudential position. It’s a political stance. And justices -- including progressive justices -- shouldn’t decide cases based on who the parties are. They should decide cases based on their beliefs about how the law should be interpreted.” (Noah Feldman, Op-Ed, “Democrats' Misguided Argument Against Gorsuch,” Bloomberg, 3/15/17)

• “Noah Feldman … is a professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter.” (“Noah Feldman,” Bloomberg View, Accessed 3/15/2017)

NEAL KATYAL, Former Acting Solicitor General Under President Obama: “His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence — a record that should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him. … Right about now, the public could use some reassurance that no matter how chaotic our politics become, the members of the Supreme Court will uphold the oath they must take: to ‘administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.’ I am confident Neil Gorsuch will live up to that promise.” (Neal Katyal, Op-Ed, “Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch,” The New York Times, 1/31/17)

DAVID C. FREDERICK, Board Member, Liberal American Constitution Society Who Specializes In Supreme Court Practice: “Anyone who sees Gorsuch as automatically pro-corporation should talk to the officers at Rockwell International and Dow Chemical, against whom he reinstated a $920 million jury verdict for environmental contamination at the Rocky Flats nuclear facility. Executives at U.S. Tobacco Company might also be wringing their hands at the moment, given that Gorsuch, as an attorney, helped to attain one of the largest antitrust verdicts in history against the company.” (David Frederick, Op-Ed, “There Is No Principled Reason To Vote Against Gorsuch,” The Washington Post, 3/8/17)

• FREDERICK:  “He has defended large corporations, but also sued them. He has advocated for the Chamber of Commerce, but also filed (and prevailed with) class actions on behalf of consumers. We should applaud such independence of mind and spirit in Supreme Court nominees.” (David Frederick, Op-Ed, “There Is No Principled Reason To Vote Against Gorsuch,” The Washington Post, 3/8/17)