More than a decade ago, Neil Gorsuch had an interesting way of describing judicial confirmation hearings. “They’re just another avenue of political warfare,” he wrote. And today, he’s finding out just how true those words are. In the second day of his own hearing — which would have seemed like a distant dream when he penned those words 12 years ago — he put his theory to the test with Democrats who are having trouble finding anything wrong with the Supreme Court nominee.

For two days, Gorsuch has done the president proud, handling every question with grace and thoughtfulness. More importantly, the 10th Circuit judge is putting the judicial spotlight where it belongs: not on his own ideology, but the law. With a humility foreign to many judges, he used his opening statement as an opportunity to explain what sets him apart from so many in his profession.

These days, we sometimes hear judges cynically described as politicians in robes, seeking to enforce their own politics rather than striving to apply the law impartially. If I thought that were true, I’d hang up the robe. The truth is, I just don’t believe that’s what a life in the law is about… As a judge now for more than a decade I’ve watched my colleagues spend long days worrying over cases. Sometimes the answers we reach aren’t the ones we personally prefer. Sometimes the answers follow us home at night and keep us up. But the answers we reach are always the ones we believe the law requires. And for all its imperfections, I believe the rule of law in this nation truly is a wonder, and that it’s no wonder that it’s the envy of the world.

While others claim to practice restraint, Gorsuch’s record proves it. The 49-year-old has spent his career in deference to the law and the democratic process. “I don’t think it’s an accident the framers put Article I first,” he told Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA). “You make the law. The president’s job was to faithfully execute your laws. And our job, Article III, down at the bottom, is to make sure that the cases and controversies of the people are fairly decided. And if those roles were confused, and power amalgamated, judges would make pretty rotten legislators. We’re life tenured, right? You can’t get rid of us. It only takes a couple of us to make a decision, or nine, or 12, depending on the court. It would be a pretty poor way to run a democracy.”

For so many Americans who have watched as a handful of justices redefine thousands of years of tradition and natural law, listening to Gorsuch was like a breath of fresh air. Unlike so many judicial activists today, he understands his role. In a world where issues like same-sex marriage and abortion were suddenly discovered in the invisible ink of the Constitution, Gorsuch offered hope that he would not declare what he would “like the [law] to be” but “what it is.” Everyone, he insisted, “wants a fair judge.” “I have no difficulty ruling for or against any party, based on what the laws and facts in the particular case require. And I’m heartened by the support I have received from people who recognize that there’s no such thing as a Republican judge or Democratic judge. We just have judges in this country.”

That should have satisfied the room’s liberals. But as usual, they had their own agenda — and finding a judge who understands the boundaries of the judiciary wasn’t it. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) lobbed plenty of darts at Gorsuch, starting with Roe v. Wade and the president’s promise to appoint a pro-life justice. If he placed so much value in precedent, she pressed, wouldn’t that also apply to legalized abortion? “Do you view Roe as having super precedent?” she asked. “It has been reaffirmed many times,” he replied. “I can say that.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) took the chamber on a bizarre rant about health care during his opening statement, which included its share of swipes at Trump’s pick — and then claimed Gorsuch was neither “neutral” nor “judicious,” despite bipartisan support to the contrary. Others like Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-NH) at least had the semblance of legitimate questions. On questions like religious liberty, Gorsuch was solid. “Senator,” he said to Leahy at once point,

We have not just the First Amendment free exercise clause in this country, a very important protection. We have not just the equal protection guarantee of the 14th amendment which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, we also have the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Senator Hatch mentioned, which was a bipartisan bill passed by this body with the support of Senator Kennedy and Senator Schumer when he was in the house. And that imposes an even higher standard on the government than the First Amendment when it comes to religious discrimination. It says that there if there’s any sincerely held religious belief — earnestly held religious belief — the government must meet strict scrutiny before it may regulate on that basis. Strict scrutiny being the highest standard known in American law.

There’s a reason — many, in fact — why conservative groups like FRC are lining up behind Neil Gorsuch’s nomination. He is, as leaders in our coalition wrote in a letter to the Senate, “a defender of the most basic human rights.” He has, as he’s proven this week, a “keen understanding and respect for religious liberty in cases involving Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor.” He argues in his own book that “human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable.” All the evidence suggests that President Trump did, in fact, select a nominee in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Originally published here.

A Byrd’s Eye View of Health Care

House staffers have probably lost count of the number of drafts they’ve been through with the American Health Care Act. Monday, they introduced another — this time, incorporating several suggestions from the House Republican Study Committee (RSC) and other members. In this latest round, the text for the repeal-replace plan has some “sweeteners” for almost every faction of the GOP. For the moderates, there’s a “more generous” tax credit for “older, low-income Americans.” For conservatives, there’s language that will help stop state Medicaid expansions. And for pro-lifers, there’s a change that will build an even higher wall between taxpayer dollars and abortion.

Although the bill is a long way from perfect, we’re very grateful for the work Republican leaders like Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), House Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows (R-NC), and the RSC did in addressing our grave concerns over the abortion funding issues. However, because of the limitations on the budget reconciliation process (which is how Republicans plan to overcome the 60-vote threshold in the Senate), it’s unclear whether or not the pro-life language will survive a parliamentarian challenge in the Senate. Since reconciliation speeds up the process, former Senator Robert Byrd created an accountability mechanism. Under his rule, senators can object to a bill if they think it doesn’t change spending or reduce the deficit (which is the ultimate purpose of reconciliation). The Senate could waive the rule, but it would take 60 votes to pass the bill that the GOP doesn’t have. Obviously, liberals will do anything to protect Planned Parenthood and abortion funding — including arguing that these provisions are irrelevant to the budget process.

Obviously, we think there are good arguments to be made to ensure the pro-life protections survive a Byrd rule challenge. However, nothing is guaranteed until the parliamentarian makes a final ruling — and until we’re certain that the legislation will, in fact, end the forced partnership between taxpayers and the abortion industry, FRC will not score in favor of the bill. In the meantime, we’ll continue to work with members of the Senate to preserve — or even strengthen — the pro-life provisions of Obamacare’s replacement. From there, we’ll make a determination whether or not to score in favor or in opposition to the final measure in the Senate.

Originally published here.

NC Boycott Hardly a Slam Dunk for ACC

The good news for North Carolina is starting to sound like a broken record, but based on the latest business reports, HB 2 might have been the best thing that happened to the state! Tourism is thriving and the economy is expanding — which is exactly the opposite of what liberals predicted. In a great Washington Times piece yesterday, Bradford Richardson and Valerie Richardson are quick to point out that whatever “boycott” the Left had unleashed on the Tar Heels wasn’t nearly as powerful as it thought it would be.

Financial indicators released for 2016, they write, “show that the boycott has failed to derail North Carolina as a regional and national powerhouse,” despite the loss of some significant sporting events. As we’ve talked about before, hotel occupancy and room demand shattered records last year — part of the reason Forbes named North Carolina #2 in the nation for doing business. Now, adding to those accolades, Site Selection magazine just named the state “fourth in the nation for attracting and expanding businesses with the arrival of 289 projects — and seventh in projects per capita.” Hardly the stuff of a flailing economy! “North Carolina finished first for drawing corporate facilities in the eight-state South Atlantic region,” the Times goes on. “Also unscathed was the state’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate, which was 5.3 in January 2016 and 5.3 percent in January 2017.” If liberals were hoping to make a case study out of North Carolina and the effects of privacy bills, they’ll have a tough time doing so now. As many as 13 states are considering measures like HB 2 — and based on these numbers, it might be the best decision they ever make!

Meanwhile, Target and sports associations like the NBA and ACC continue to pay for their stubbornness. After moving their events out of North Carolina, both the NBA All-Star Game and ACC Basketball Championship sold the fewest tickets to their events ever. The almost year-long boycott of Target has the retailer swimming in red ink, with shares down as much as 35 percent since opening its bathrooms and changing rooms to people of either gender. Yet, amazingly, the company’s executives and PR specialists continue to insist that their transgender policy has anything to do with the crash. Target spokeswoman Erika Winkels told Snopes.com, “We have made it clear over time that we’ve seen no material impact to the business based on the bathroom policy. We don’t have anything new or different to share.”

But saying it doesn’t make it so. And if, like the media, it believes that ignoring it will make it go away, Target is mistaken. The company was at its peak the day it announced its new bathroom rules. After that, it has yet to recover. Compared to the S&P 500, Target has been declining while the rest of the market — including its biggest competitors — rebounds. Coincidence? Only Target thinks so.

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.