Supreme Court                                      

ABA Journal: ABA testifies on ‘well-qualified’ rating of Judge Gorsuch: ‘Our task was to cast a wide net’

By Lee Rawles

After an exhaustive review that produced a report with more than 900 pages, Judge Neil Gorsuch unanimously earned the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary’s highest rating, of “well-qualified,” committee members told the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary on Thursday. 

Nancy Scott Degan of New Orleans, the chair of the standing committee, delivered the prepared statement alongside Shannon L. Edwards, the committee member representing the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals…

“The standing committee does not propose, endorse or recommend nominees,” Degan told the senators. “Its sole function is to evaluate a nominee’s integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament, and then rate the nominee as ‘well-qualified,’ ‘qualified, or ‘not qualified.’ In so doing, the committee relies heavily on the confidential, frank and considered assessments of lawyers, academics, judges and others who have relevant information about the nominee’s professional qualifications.”

Almost 5,000 people with professional or personal knowledge of Gorsuch were contacted by the committee. 

Washington Post: Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch nomination

By Robert Barnes, Ed O’Keefe, and Ann E. Marimow

Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch ended Thursday on a confrontational note, with the body’s top Democrat vowing a filibuster that could complicate Gorsuch’s expected confirmation and ultimately upend the traditional approach to approving justices.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he will vote no on President Trump’s nominee and asked other Democrats to join him in blocking an up-or-down vote on Gorsuch…

Thomas C. Goldstein, a Supreme Court practitioner and co-founder of SCOTUSblog, said that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee did not present a compelling case that Gorsuch was either an illegitimate nominee or that he was outside the conservative mainstream.

“None of the Democrats set the table” for a filibuster, Goldstein said. He speculated that one option for some Democrats would be to allow an up-or-down vote, and then to vote against confirmation…

But moderate Democrats have said they are hoping that the two parties can come to an agreement that leads to Gorsuch’s confirmation and the preservation of current Senate traditions.

Washington Times: Judge Gorsuch is a kind, open-minded man, say supporters on final day of hearings

By Alex Swoyer

Two former chief judges of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who both worked with Judge Gorsuch, endorsed him for the promotion to the high court, as did District Court Judge John L. Kane, who said he’s been both reversed and affirmed by the judge.

“Each time, I thought he was fair and right,” said Judge Kane. “He treats the parties and the trial judge’s rulings with respect.”

That contradicted the message Democrats and their witnesses told the Senate Judiciary Committee on the final day of hearings on Judge Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

Leaders of a full range of liberal interest groups testified against the judge, saying that based on their reading of his cases – and on the fact that he was picked by President Trump – they don’t trust him to advance their interests on the high court.

Heather McGhee, president of the progressive public policy organization Demos, said Judge Gorsuch wouldn’t advance the kinds of campaign finance laws she wants to see, saying it “could return us to an era in which powerful interests ran roughshod over workers, consumers, and anyone without a large checkbook and financial megaphone of their own.”

The Hill: Friends, foes spar in fight on Trump’s Supreme Court nominee

By Lydia Wheeler

Heather McGhee, president of Demos, a liberal policy think tank, lambasted Gorsuch for not distancing himself from the court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which struck down limits on campaign contributions.

But Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) pushed back against her criticism.

“Do you really expect a nominee of the United States Supreme Court – whether he or she is nominated by a Democratic president or a Republican president – to come before the United States Judiciary Committee and talk about what’s good policy or bad policy?” he asked…

George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, however, argued that Gorsuch shouldn’t be penalized for his past opinions.

“The jurisprudence reflect, not surprisingly, a jurist who crafts his decisions very close to the text of a statute, and, in my view, that is no vice for a federal judge,” he said.

Turley said he does not expect Gorsuch to be a “robotic vote” for the right of the court.

“While conservative, he’s shown intellectual curiosity and honesty that I think is going to take him across the ideological spectrum,” he said.

USA Today: Senate’s top Democrat opposes Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch

By Richard Wolf

The Senate’s top Democrat announced Thursday he will try to block Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation following two days of questioning…

Thursday’s final day of the judiciary committee hearing featured three panels interspersed with both supporters and opponents. Those supporting Gorsuch included former colleagues on the bench, law clerks from his Denver chambers, law school professors, and representatives from business and religious liberty groups.

Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School predicted that if confirmed, Gorsuch will not turn out to be a rigid conservative in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whose seat he would take. Gorsuch “will have a lasting legacy,” Turley said. “He’s not going to be very predictable. I don’t think he’ll be robotic.”…

Among the judge’s supporters were representatives of the American Bar Association, which gave him its highest rating of “well qualified” after reaching out to 4,997 people and delivering a 944-page report.

Washington Examiner: Trying to smear Neil Gorsuch over dark money, Democrats solicit testimony from dark money group

By Philip Wegman

In the Senate Judiciary Committee room Thursday, Demos Action President Heather McGhee tried slamming Gorsuch on the issue. But if some conservative groups have merely adopted dark money to push his nomination, her organization was born in it.

Her testimony on the supposedly shady subject only highlighted her own hypocrisy. While McGhee complained that Gorsuch didn’t condemn an ethereal conglomerate “spending millions of dollars to buy influence with our politicians,” she didn’t disclose that her group solicits and accepts unmarked dollars from unnamed donors. Seriously, it’s public record.

Demos Action fulfills the Internal Revenue Service’s requirements for a 501(c)4. They literally fit the definition of a dark money group.

That hypocrisy hasn’t gone unnoticed. The Center for Public Integrity recently decried Demos Action as a dark money group ostensibly fighting dark money in the shadows. That nonpartisan investigative group suggested that the group “may need to look into the darkness that shrouds their own pots of money.”

The Media                                          

Washington Post: Neil Gorsuch makes the media yawn. That’s probably good for his odds of joining the Supreme Court.

By Callum Borchers

Reports on Gorsuch did not make Thursday’s front pages of The Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal or USA Today…
The best thing for Gorsuch might be to keep a low media profile. In hour after hour of questioning, Senate Democrats have been looking hard for something that will fire up public opposition to the judge; Gorsuch’s relegation to the inside pages of major newspapers is a sign that he has not provided it.

As The Post’s Ed O’Keefe, Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow reported Thursday in a story about Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer’s plan to stall a vote via filibuster, “Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee became increasingly frustrated by Gorsuch’s bland answers.”

He’s bland! That’s not an especially compelling rallying cry.

Political Parties                                            

Fox News: Democrats fail to cash in on Trump troubles, GOP coffers overflowing

A series of controversies and a stalled legislative agenda might be a drag on President Trump’s approval ratings, but campaign finance records show Democrats have failed to cash in on the chaos.

Despite making a money pitch after every misstatement or errant tweet, the Democratic National Committee raised $6.4 million last month, compared to $9.5 million pulled in by the Republican National Committee, according to FEC reports filed Monday.

Republicans got off to a good start with a record-setting $20 million haul in January, which is double the total raised by their Democratic counterpart in the first two months of 2017.

To date, the RNC has outpaced the Democrats with nearly $30 million in total receipts, compared with nearly $11.5 million for the DNC.

So far this year, Republican campaign committees have raised nearly $60 million, as opposed to the $36.6 million in receipts brought in by the Democrats, according to the FEC.

Congress                                           

Pierce County Tribune: Heitkamp: Shining the SUN on dark money

By Sen. Heidi Heitkamp

Just last week I signed onto a bill with Senator Jon Tester from Montana to get our politics into the sunlight and limit the influence of big money donors, so North Dakota voters have the transparency they deserve.

Our SUN Act would make sure the public knows who is funneling money into tax-exempt groups that currently aren’t required to disclose their donors as they try to influence elections through TV and radio ads, direct mail, and more-and we’re already seeing these ads in North Dakota. Any donor who spends more than $5,000 on tax-exempt groups that engage in electioneering would have to make that donation public. The bill would have no impact on non-profits that don’t engage in election activities.

Independent Groups                                         

Bloomberg: Drug Companies Are Buying Ads on Shows They Know Donald Trump Watches

By John McCormick and Jared S. Hopkins

The top trade association for U.S. drugmakers is spending more on television advertising than any other special-interest group, part of a multi-year campaign to repair the industry’s reputation and counter President Donald Trump’s claims that it’s “getting away with murder” on pricing.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, commonly known as PhRMA, has already spent an estimated $8.6 million on broadcast television and cable ads in 2017, according to data from Kantar Media’s CMAG, which tracks issue ads.

The pharmaceuticals group hadn’t bought any broadcast TV ads in at least five years. It now plans to spend “high tens of millions of dollars every year” on its campaign, including TV, radio and digital ads, as well as hosted events, said Robert Zirkelbach, its executive vice president for public affairs.

Trump Administration                                         

Huffington Post: OpenSecrets adds data on executive branch personal finances – but White House officials have yet to file disclosures

By Alex Baumgart

Today, the Center for Responsive Politics is releasing new personal financial data for members of the Trump administration. Collected from reports that executive branch nominees are required to submit to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), the data gives the public an inside look at the financial interests of what is likely the wealthiest cabinet in modern history…

This effort represents the beginning of our expanded coverage of the executive branch’s personal financial data. But there’s a big hole: We still await legally required financial disclosures from members of the Executive Office of the President. High-ranking employees have 30 days after taking office to file the reports with White House ethics officials, who then have up to 60 days to review them. The reports are then sent to OGE, which reviews them as well – and has 30 days upon receipt to make them publicly available.

So far, the only concrete evidence of White House officials working to comply with their ethics agreements comes in the form of a periodic transaction report from Trump’s senior advisor, Jared Kushner, that was posted late last week.

The States

ABC News: Bill would bar discrimination toward climate change doubters

By Marina Villeneuve and PatrickWhittle

Rep. Larry Lockman has introduced a bill that would limit the attorney general’s ability to investigate or prosecute people based on their political speech, including their views on climate change…

Lockman wants to prohibit the state attorney general from investigating, joining an investigation or prosecuting any person based on that person’s protected political speech.

But he said his bill would also reaffirm free speech by protecting climate change supporters as well.

“I don’t want to see a Republican state attorney general issuing subpoenas for the records of progressive or liberal think tanks or public policy groups to chill their free speech,” he said.

Democratic Attorney General Janet Mills declined to comment.

In his bill, Lockman says that the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United “continued the protection of protected political speech, no matter the source or message.”

Providence Journal: Democrats, Republicans and ‘dark money’

By Katherine Gregg

After hearing Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse lament the public’s inability to unmask “dark money” spending during the confirmation hearings this week for President Donald Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, state Republican Chairman Brandon Bell fired off a news release titled: “Stop the hypocrisy.”

Bell focused his comments on the tens of thousands of campaign dollars that Whitehouse and Gov. Gina Raimondo, both Democrats, have received in recent years from lawyers at a Boston law firm that is under investigation…

Bell’s statement: “According to the Boston Globe, the Thornton Law Firm is under investigation by federal and Massachusetts state officials for illegal campaign donations involving a straw donor scam.” By his count, Raimondo has received nearly $33,000 in donations from people at the Thornton Law Firm, and Whitehouse more than $70,000.

“This week Governor Gina Raimondo called for various government reforms through an op-ed while U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse pontificated about dark money… Maybe the public would take their op-eds and speeches about reforming government more seriously if they actually returned the tainted donations they received from a law firm under investigation for a straw donor scam.”