Lively and in-depth discussions of city news, politics, science, entertainment, the arts, and more.
Hosted by Larry Mantle
Airs Weekdays 10 a.m.-12 p.m.

Dueling law professors analyze the Neil Gorsuch confirmation hearing




Neil M. Gorsuch testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his nomination to be an associate justice of the US Supreme Court during a hearing in the Hart Senate Office Building.
Neil M. Gorsuch testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his nomination to be an associate justice of the US Supreme Court during a hearing in the Hart Senate Office Building.
MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

Listen to story

24:17
Download this story 11MB

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is facing the Senate Judiciary Committee for an initial round of questioning that is expected to last at least 10 hours today.

His confirmation hearing is revealing the great partisan divide encompassing so many issues. So far, he's been asked about overturning high court precedents, his judicial philosophy and the limits of presidential power. He has held back from commenting on how he would rule on issues like abortion, gun control and President Trump’s executive order on immigration. He was also asked about his opinion of Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy opened upon Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. Judge Gorsuch praised Garland for his work as a jurist, but wouldn’t comment on the partisan fight surrounding his confirmation, or lack thereof.

In his answers, Judge Gorsuch has tried to portray himself as a man who unflinchingly follows the rule of law regardless of political pressure or the parties involved in the case, and said he’s made no promises to anyone in the White House or Congress about how he’d rule on a certain case.

Guests:

John McGinnis, the George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law at Northwestern

Margaret Russell, constitutional law professor at Santa Clara University