Articles

Language from Cornyn’s MANIFEST Act Now Law

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) issued the following statement after President Trump signed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Transition Authorization Act of 2017 into law, including language from Sen. Cornyn’s MANIFEST Act to require NASA to develop plans for the future of U.S. human space exploration and set the goal of landing an astronaut on Mars:

“The President’s signature on this legislation reinforces our commitment to human space exploration and American innovation,” said Sen. Cornyn. “Texas has and will continue to be at the forefront of human space exploration, and I want to thank Senator Cruz and the members of the Texas congressional delegation who fought for this legislation.”

The NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017, now law, includes the following provisions consistent with Sen. Cornyn’s MANIFEST for Human Spaceflight Act:

  • The legislation would require NASA to regularly provide Congress a human exploration strategy outlining goals and destinations for future manned space missions.
  • To ensure the agency considers independent views, NASA is directed to partner with the National Academies to provide input and further recommendations that would be included in the final strategy.
  • Directs NASA to specifically designate a human presence on the surface of Mars and  beyond low-earth orbit as a long-term goal, a position supported by the Spaceflight Committee’s report as well as the broader space exploration community.
  • Reaffirms Congressional support for the Space Launch System and the Orion program, and directs any long-term strategy to include opportunities for collaboration with industry and academia.

Senator John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, is a member of the Senate Finance, Intelligence, and Judiciary Committees.

 

 

 

 

Sen. Cruz: Just a Decade Ago, Not a Single Democrat Spoke a Word of Opposition to Judge Gorsuch When Confirmed as Federal Judge

Cruz Gives Introductory Remarks to Senate Judiciary Committee in Support of Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today spoke in support of the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. In the first day of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Sen. Cruz is a member, the senator praised Judge Gorsuch’s experience and commitment to the rule of law. He also noted that in Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings to be a federal judge ten years ago, not one Democrat spoke against him, indicating the bipartisan respect and support of his record and experience.

Sen. Cruz’s remarks may be viewed here.

Below are Sen. Cruz’s remarks as prepared:

February the 13th of last year was a devastating day for those of us who embrace the Constitution and the Rule of Law. On that day, we lost Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Justice Scalia was one of the greatest justices to ever sit on the Court. He was a trailblazing advocate for the original meaning of the Constitution, and a shining example of judicial humility. His death left an enormous hole not only in our hearts, but in the Rule of Law. And it left enormous shoes to fill.

Today, there is sharp disagreement about the very nature of the Supreme Court. Some people view the Court as a hyper-powerful political branch. When they grow frustrated with the legislative process and the will of the people, they run to the courts to see their preferred policies enacted.

For conservatives, we know the opposite to be true. We read the Constitution and see that it imbues the federal judiciary with a much more modest role than the left embraces. Judges are not supposed to make law. They are supposed to faithfully apply it.

Justice Scalia was a champion of this modest view of the judicial role. But had his vacant seat been filled by Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, Justice Scalia’s legacy would have been in grave danger.

If they had filled this seat, we would have seen a Supreme Court where the will of the people would have been repeatedly cast aside by a new Supreme Court majority. We would have seen a Supreme Court majority that viewed itself as philosopher kings who had the power to decide for the rest of us what policies should govern our nation and control every facet of our lives.

That would been a profound and troubling shift in the direction of the Supreme Court and in our nation’s future. That is why, after Justice Scalia’s untimely death, I was proud to join my colleagues in drawing a line in the sand on behalf of the American people.

We chose to exercise our explicit constitutional authority found in Article II, Section II of the Constitution. We advised President Obama that we would not consent to a Supreme Court nominee until the people, in the presidential election, were able to choose between an originalist vision of the Constitution represented by Justice Scalia, or a progressive one represented by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

During the campaign, President Trump repeatedly promised to nominate, from a specific list of 21 judges, a principled constitutionalist to fill the void left by Justice Scalia.

Issuing such a list was a move without precedent in our country’s presidential history, and it created the most transparent process for selecting a Supreme Court justice that our nation has ever seen.

The voters were able to see who President Trump would nominate and were able to decide for themselves whether that is the future they wanted for the Court.

And in November, the People spoke. In what essentially was a referendum on the kind of justice that should replace Justice Scalia, the People chose originalism, textualism, and the rule of law.

Judge Gorsuch is no ordinary nominee. Because of this unique and transparent process—unprecedented in this nation’s history—his nomination carries with it a super-legitimacy that is also unprecedented in this nation’s history.

All of us have been able to be involved in this process from day one. For my part, I have pored through Judge Gorsuch’s opinions to get a feel for the man, his writing style, and his judicial philosophy.

Like the renowned justice he is set to replace, Judge Gorsuch is brilliant and immensely talented. His record demonstrates a faithful commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law. He has refused to legislate his own policy preferences from the bench, while recognizing the pivotal role the judiciary plays in defending the fundamental liberties recognized in the Bill of Rights.

On this score, I am particularly comforted by Judge Gorsuch’s own words. On the night he was nominated, Judge Gorsuch channeled Justice Scalia when he explained that “a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge, stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.”

These words should give comfort to the American people—and to my Democratic colleagues. With Neil Gorsuch, we have a man who respects this institution and respects the work that we do here on behalf of our constituents.

And my Democratic colleagues know it. Let’s not forget that just a decade ago, Judge Gorsuch was confirmed in the Senate by a voice vote only two months after he was nominated to be a judge. He was even reported out of this committee by a voice vote. Not a single Democrat spoke even a word of opposition to him.

Not our current minority leader Chuck Schumer. Not Harry Reid or Ted Kennedy or John Kerry. Not Senators Feinstein, Leahy, and Durbin, who still sit on this very committee. Not even Senators Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden spoke out against Neil Gorsuch.

The question I would ask my Democratic colleagues is this: What has changed? Ten years ago, he was so unobjectionable that he did not merit even a whisper of disapproval. In the decade since, he has had an objectively exemplary record. If anything, he has shown himself to be even more worthy of the bipartisan support he received back then.

Unfortunately, that is probably not something that my Democratic colleagues can do today in light of the current political climate. Many probably believe they have no choice but to manufacture attacks against Neil Gorsuch, whether they want to or not, just to preserve their own political future.

We are seeing these baseless attacks already. Most recently, some Democrats have been slandering Judge Gorsuch as being “against the little guy” because he has dared to rule based on the law, and not on the identity of the persons appearing before him.

This is beyond absurd. For one thing, these are the same people who have spent the past eight years attacking the Little Sisters of the Poor for having the audacity to be live according to their deeply held religious beliefs. You really need to take a long look in the mirror if once day you find yourself attacking a group called the Little Sisters of the Poor. So forgive me if I don’t believe these people actually care about the “little guy.”

But more important than that, a judge is not supposed to care about the big guy or the little guy. A judge swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States, not to give favor to particular litigants.

Unfortunately, I fear that we will see even more baseless attacks this week. But I hope I am wrong. I hope that my Democratic colleagues will give Judge Gorsuch a fair chance. I hope that those who were willing to confirm him ten years ago will treat Judge Gorsuch with the same respect that they showed him then.

Because make no mistake: Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed.

So, let me thank you for being here, Judge Gorsuch. I look forward to asking you questions, I look forward to voting for you, and I look forward to seeing you on the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

0 86

AUSTIN – A bill passed by the Texas Senate imposing state restrictions on city revenues would give the smallest tax breaks, if any, to elderly and disabled homeowners.

“The method the Senate has chosen for providing property tax relief guarantees that homeowners who qualify for the over 65 or the disabled exemption on their homes will get practically no tax cut,” said Bennett Sandlin, Executive Director of the Texas Municipal League.

“Anyone who calls this tax relief is really committing tax fraud,” Sandlin said.

SB 2, passed by the Senate on Tuesday, would place a 5 percent cap on city property tax increases, restricting the ability of cities to fund police and fire protection, road construction, and economic development incentives.  At a Senate Finance Committee hearing on the bill last week, mayors and more than 100 uniformed police, sheriffs, fire fighters, and emergency medical technicians expressed their opposition to the bill.

According to estimates by the Texas Municipal League, if SB 2 had been in effect for the current tax year, the owner of a home with a market value of $250,000 in the City of Dallas would have seen a $27.69 reduction in city taxes on a total tax bill – including school district, county, and special district taxes – of more than $5,400.  The owner of a $250,000 home in Dallas who is over 65 or disabled would have seen an even smaller annual tax savings of $18.83, or only $1.57 per month, in city taxes.

In the City of San Antonio, the owner of a $250,000 home would have seen a savings of only $12.01 this year from the SB 2 cap on city taxes, while the savings for a homeowner over 65 in San Antonio would have been only $8.89 on a $250,000 home.

Homeowners in the cities of Houston, Fort Worth, and Austin would have seen no reduction in their property tax bills if SB 2 had been in effect this year.

“The supporters of SB 2 constantly talk about older Texans being taxed out of their homes, but they are pushing through a tax relief bill that gives the smallest tax breaks to homeowners who are over 65 years old,” Sandlin said.  “Legislators are shamefully trying to deceive Texas homeowners into believing this is meaningful tax relief.”

“These numbers show that city property taxes are not the problem and SB 2 is not the solution.  If legislators are serious about reducing property taxes for homeowners, they will throw this bill out and start addressing the real cause of high property tax which is the state’s system of financing public education.”

By Antony Davies and James R. Harrigan

As the federal debt has gone from astounding to unbelievable to incomprehensible, a new problem has emerged: The US government is actually running out of places to borrow.

The $20 trillion debt is already twice the annual revenues collected by all the world’s governments combined. Including unfunded liabilities, though, which include promised Social Security, Medicare, and government pension payments that Washington will not have the money to pay, the federal government actually owes somewhere between $100 trillion and $200 trillion. The numbers are so ridiculously large that even the uncertainty in the figures exceeds the annual economic output of the entire planet.

Since 2000, the federal debt has grown at an average annual rate of 8.2%, doubling from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in the past eight years alone. Who loaned the government this money? Four groups: foreigners, Americans, the Federal Reserve, and government trust funds. But over the past decade, three of these groups have cut back significantly on their lending.

Foreign investors have slowed the growth in their lending from over 20% per year in the early 2000s to less than 3% per year today. Excluding the Great Recession years, American investors have been cutting back on how much they lend the federal government by an average of 2% each year. Social Security, though, presents an even bigger problem. The federal government borrowed all the Social Security surpluses of the past 80 years. But starting this year, and continuing either forever or until Congress overhauls the program (which may be the same thing), Social Security will only generate deficits. Not only is the government no longer able to borrow from Social Security, it will have to start paying back what it owes – assuming the government plans on making good on its obligations.

With federal borrowing growing at more than 6% per year, with foreign and American investors becoming more reluctant to lend, and with the Social Security trust fund drying up, the Fed is the only game left in town. Since 2001, the Fed has increased its lending to the federal government by over 11% each year, on average. Expect that trend to continue.

For decades, often in word but always in deed, politicians have told voters that government debt didn’t matter. We, and many economists, disagree. Yet even if the politicians were right, the absence of available creditors would be an insurmountable problem – were it not for the Federal Reserve. But when the Federal Reserve acts as the lender of last resort, unpleasant realities follow. Because, as everyone should be keenly aware, the Fed simply prints the money it loans.

A Fed loan devalues every dollar already in circulation, from those in people’s savings accounts to those in their pockets. The result is inflation, which is, in essence, a tax on frugal savers to fund a spendthrift government.

Since the end of World War II, inflation in the US has averaged less than 4% per year. When the Fed starts printing money in earnest because the government can’t obtain loans elsewhere, inflation will rise dramatically. How far is difficult to say, but we have some recent examples of countries that tried to finance runaway government spending by printing money. From 1975 to 1990, the Greek people suffered 15% annual inflation as their government printed money to finance stimulus spending. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, Russia printed money to keep its government running. The result was five years over which inflation averaged 750%. Today, Venezuela’s government prints money to pay its bills, causing 200% inflation which the International Monetary Fund expects to skyrocket to 1,600% this year.

For nearly a century, politicians have treated deficit spending as a magic wand. In a recession? We need jobs, so government must spend more money! In an expansion? There’s more tax revenue, so government can spend more money! Always and everywhere, politicians argued only about how much to increase spending, never whether to increase spending. A century of this has left us with a debt so large that it dwarfs the annual economic output of the planet. And now we are coming to the point at which there will be no one left from whom to borrow. When creditors finally disappear completely, all that will remain is a reckoning.

Antony Davies is associate professor of economics at Duquesne University. James R. Harrigan is senior research fellow at Strata in Logan, Utah.

This article first appeared in InsideSources.

 

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today attended a reception hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. There, Sen. Cruz received the “Spirit of Enterprise” award in recognition of the pro-growth, pro-jobs policies he has advanced during his time in the Senate. Photos of the reception are available for download here.

“During my time in Washington, I have worked to promote policies that foster economic opportunity for the 27 million Texans I represent,” Sen. Cruz said. “I am honored to receive the ‘Spirit of Enterprise’ award from the Chamber, an organization that works hard to advance policies that create jobs and expand opportunity. When I meet with business leaders in Texas, there is an enthusiasm and excitement that I have not seen in a long time. I believe we’ve been given an historic opportunity to implement health care reform, regulatory reform and fundamental tax reform to lift wages and grow our economy to lift wages and grow our economy. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to deliver on the promises we made to the American people, and with the members of the Chamber to promote these policies.”

“Businesses of all shapes and sizes need sound, commonsense policy in place in order to get off the ground, grow, and succeed,” said Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “The Spirit of Enterprise Award recognizes those members of Congress who have done what’s right for our friends, family, and neighbors running businesses across the country. We applaud Sen. Cruz for his commitment to free enterprise and economic growth.”

The Chamber’s prestigious Spirit of Enterprise Award is given annually to members of Congress based on their votes on critical business legislation as outlined in the Chamber’s annual scorecardHow They Voted. Members who supported the Chamber’s position on at least 70 percent of those votes qualify to receive the award.

During the second session of the 114th Congress, the Chamber scored members on 8 Senate votes and 14 House votes related to access to capital for small businesses, ensuring our workforce has the skills necessary for the jobs of tomorrow, and helping American manufacturers compete in a global economy. In addition, votes in support of building the U.S. water infrastructure system, protecting intellectual property, and updating energy policy also factored into scoring.

This is the 29th year that the U.S. Chamber has formally honored the accomplishments of this select group of members of Congress.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations.

 

0 48

 

Pens Op-Ed for WSJ and Speaks at Capitol Hill Rally Urging Lawmakers to

Repeal Obamacare in Manner That Fulfills Promises to the American People

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, penned the below op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, outlining three criteria for health care reform, as well as a path forward for the House and Senate to fulfill the promises members made to the American people. Excerpts are included below. Sen. Cruz also joined FreedomWorks’ Day of Action rally on Capitol Hill, urging fellow lawmakers to come together and repeal Obamacare.

 

 

“I believe we’re poised for this to be the most productive congress in decades. The first and the most important is we must honor our promise and repeal Obamacare,” Sen. Cruz said. “The time for talk is over. Now is the time for action. Failure is not an option.”

Video of the Senator’s remarks may be viewed here.

Excerpts of the Senator’s op-ed are below. Full article may be viewed here.

Three Criteria for Health Reform

The Wall Street Journal

By: Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Mark Meadows

March 15, 2017

Republicans have a historic opportunity to follow through on our promise to repeal ObamaCare. The recent elections that focused on the law’s repeal—2010, 2014 and 2016—were massive GOP victories. The American people gave our party unified control of the federal government, and a mandate for meaningful change.

After years of talk, we know that the Republican repeal-and-replace effort will soon be judged by three criteria: Does it make health care more affordable? Does it give consumers more choices? Does it provide Americans more control over their families’ health care?

As of now, the House’s bill neither fully repeals ObamaCare nor passes these three tests. Yet there’s a path forward—if the administration and Republicans from across the political spectrum can put aside past differences to find consensus. Here is how we propose the House and Senate come together to do just that:

First, we must lower insurance premiums. Nothing matters more. The current House bill would not achieve this, because it doesn’t repeal all of ObamaCare’s insurance mandates. Of the few it addresses, the bill delays their repeal. We must abolish ObamaCare’s mandates immediately; Americans need relief from higher premiums and cannot wait until 2020 or beyond

We cannot give voters a procedural excuse for why we couldn’t get the job done. Some have argued, incorrectly, that the Senate’s Byrd Rule precludes repealing these insurance mandates through the reconciliation process. That simply isn’t true. The current version of the bill already repeals or modifies a few of the mandates. Why wouldn’t we repeal all the major insurance mandates for the sake of truly lower health-care costs? How can modifying a mandate comply with Byrd, but repealing it not comply? Both have billions in budgetary effect, the central prerequisite for reconciliation.

We should follow the text of the Budget Act, which establishes the reconciliation process. Fully repealing the insurance mandates would comply with both the letter and the spirit of the statute. More important, the Senate parliamentarian does not ultimately determine what is allowable under reconciliation. That authority falls to the Senate and the vice president, the chamber’s presiding officer. As the former Senate parliamentarian Robert Dove once explained, the vice president is “the ultimate decider” on reconciliation: “The parliamentarian only can advise. It is the vice president who rules.”

Second, we shouldn’t replace ObamaCare’s subsidies with yet another health-care entitlement. Instead, we should implement nonrefundable tax credits, which can be deducted from payroll taxes for lower earners. Anyone who gets a paycheck has a large amount withheld by payroll taxes. Thus, this nonrefundable credit would benefit lower-income individuals by letting them keep more of what they earn.

 

Third, ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion should be immediately frozen and then phased out over time. A freeze wouldn’t take away coverage from any person currently enrolled—it wouldn’t pull the rug out from anybody—but it would prevent states from adding more enrollees to the expansion population, which the federal government would be responsible for funding.

 

During the phaseout, we should implement work requirements for healthy working-age adults in the Medicaid expansion population. ObamaCare overextended Medicaid beyond those people that the program was intended to serve—the disabled elderly, pregnant women and needy children. Too often now, these people and their families have been forced onto waiting lists while money has poured into the expansion population. Freezing ObamaCare’s expansion immediately will stop this misdirection of the Medicaid program without taking away anyone’s coverage.

 

We should also implement true Medicaid block grants to the states. Republicans understand that in its current form, Medicaid does not work well. Much of the dysfunction is the result of one-size-fits-all federal rules that are forced on every state. Instead of per capita caps with federal strings still attached, we should allow states to innovate to help produce better health results. That’s why the reconciliation bill should include true block grants for Medicaid funding, which actually would allow states to transform their Medicaid programs and better serve vulnerable populations, without having to ask “Mother, may I” of the federal government.

 

 

Republicans have pledged for six years to repeal ObamaCare and return choice to America’s health-care system. The time to act is now upon us. If Republicans join together with united purpose and tackle these areas of concern, we will have finally delivered on our promise.

 

 

0 40

Monday, March 27, 2017 – 3:00 – 6:00 p.m.

Willow Fork Country Club – 21055 Westheimer Parkway, Katy TX 77450

15th Annual Golf Tournament and Ladies on the Green

 

HOUSTON – March 17, 2017 – The Houston West Chamber of Commerce will celebrate its mission to be – “In Business. For Business™” by observing its own version of March Madness by partnering with the business community to promote economic growth and superior quality of life in West Houston communities.  On Monday, March 27 from 3:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m., the Houston West Chamber is hosting “Ladies on the Green” Golf Clinic at Willow Fork Country Club in Katy for women only

Ladies on the Green is part of the Chamber’s Annual Golf Classic, presented by BMW of West Houston, and will serve as both a networking event and opportunity for women to learn the fundamentals of golf in a relaxed, women only environment.  This clinic is designed particularly for beginner golfers and those who want to improve their game, and will teach attendees the basics of golf, including the rules of how to play, proper etiquette on the course and instruction on how to become better at golfing.  The goals of the clinic are to give women the opportunity to build relationships with other women, learn the game of golf and boost their confidence on the green.

The cost is $100 per participant, which includes pro golf lessons, use of golfing equipment and a networking dinner post-clinic.  To register for this clinic, contact Angela Robles at Angela@hwcoc.org or call 713-785-4922.

The Houston West Chamber of Commerce 15th Annual Golf Tournament is presented by BMW of West Houston. Check-in for all teams is 10:00 a.m. with a noon shotgun start. To register or obtain additional information, go to www.hwcoc.org for ticket pricing.

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today named Boris Ryvkin National Security Advisor, serving in his Washington, D.C. office.

“I am grateful to have Boris joining our senior staff team and look forward to working with him as we defend and promote the policies that will keep both Texas and the United Sates strong and secure,” Sen. Cruz said. “Boris has proven his exceptional legal skills and qualifications during his time in private practice, and his policy talent at the American Enterprise Institute and Hudson Institute. Texans will be served well by his leadership and qualifications on important matters of national security.”

Ryvkin was most recently an associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, where he gained valuable experience in domestic and cross-border mergers and acquisitions, securities regulation, and general corporate matters. Prior to that, he served as an associate at Clifford Chance US LLP, where he worked in general corporate matters, insurance regulatory matters, syndicated lending and banking, and asset finance transactions. As an intern at the Hudson Institute, he developed policy papers on NATO operations in Afghanistan and Russo-Iranian military cooperation. His analysis on American foreign policy, Russian military operations, and geopolitical strategy in Syria have been featured in publications including the Atlantic Sentinel, The Eastern Project, and Business Insider. Ryvkin received a bachelor’s degree from Brown University, where he graduated with honors, and a law degree from Cornell University.

0 39

‘The Senate Judiciary Committee undertakes no task more important than the one before us: considering a nominee to the United States Supreme Court.’ 

‘Not one of our Democratic colleagues then in the Senate opposed Neil Gorsuch for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals because there was simply no reason to do so.’

‘Because of your qualifications and demonstrated record of following the law, other than a few special interest groups, I believe you’ve got a broad spectrum…of people supporting your nomination.’

WASHINGTON – Today in the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court, U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) delivered an opening statement praising President Trump’s pick to fill the vacancy left by the late Judge Antonin Scalia.   Excerpts of Sen. Cornyn’s remarks are below, and video of his remarks can be found here.

“The Senate Judiciary Committee undertakes no task more important than the one before us: considering a nominee to the United States Supreme Court.”

“The nation is watching, and I think that’s a really good thing.”

“The law is not just an academic or intellectual exercise. It has real consequences for real people.”  

“Not one of our Democratic colleagues then in the Senate opposed Neil Gorsuch for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals because there was simply no reason to do so.”

“As you can see here today, his jurisprudence reflects brilliance and the humility of a man committed to the Constitution and the law. That body of work is the best guide for the kind of judge Judge Gorsuch will be.”

“We’re not here to ask you, even though some might, how you will vote in specific cases. And it would be wrong for you to prejudge those cases, as you know.”  

“And that’s the same reason why, for example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her nomination hearing said a judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecast, no hints, for that would not only show disregard for the specifics of a particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process. And our colleagues know that as well, but I expect them to ask a few questions nonetheless.”

“Well, lately we have heard from some that they should criticize you for failing to rule for a sympathetic constituency in one case or another. But of course as you know, Judge, if you follow the law and the facts wherever it may lead, sometimes it’s for the police, sometimes for a criminal defendant, sometimes it’s for a corporation, sometimes it’s for an employee, sometimes it’s for the government, sometimes it’s against the government. That’s how the rule of law works, and that’s good for all Americans.”  

“Because of your qualifications and demonstrated record of following the law, other than a few special interest groups, I believe you’ve got a broad spectrum, really surprisingly broad spectrum, of people supporting your nomination.” 

“I’m very pleased the American people are about to learn why President Trump chose you as his nominee for the Supreme Court. I look forward to hearing from Judge Gorsuch, and I would encourage my colleagues to carefully consider the nominee on the merits and nothing else.”

Senator John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, is a member of the Senate Finance, Intelligence, and Judiciary Committees.

 

 

‘I think it’s going to be a real test to see whether they’re going to follow the Elizabeth Warren-Bernie Sanders wing of the party or whether they’re going to return to the tradition of giving the President an up or down vote on who is the Supreme Court nominee.’

 WASHINGTON – Today U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) joined MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, CNN’s “New Day”, and Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom” to discuss the Senate Judiciary Confirmation hearing for Judge Neil Gorsuch to be the next Supreme Court Justice.

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”:

 “I think it’s an opportunity for all of us to examine the man, his record, and to say this is a type of person who should serve on the Supreme Court. You may not have liked the outcome of the election, but President Trump gets the opportunity to nominate an individual, and he has. And he’s made a good choice in my view. So I think this is a good chance to stop the sort of partisan warfare over judicial nominations.”

 On CNN’s “New Day”:

“The Judge is going to have to do what Ruth Bader Ginsburg and all other judges acting ethically do, which is to not prejudge cases that may come before the Court. He’s not a politician running on a platform… I think he is enormously well-qualified. It’s going to be very interesting to see what my Democrat friends do, whether they’re going to try to filibuster his nomination or not. My hope is that they decide that that would be the wrong thing to do.”

 On Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom”:

“He’s got a distinguished record as a judge. He is what I would call a traditional judge; in other words, he is not somebody who believes that judges should be policy makers wearing black robes, and who don’t run for office like politicians do… So I think he’s going to be confirmed.”                                            

I think it’s going to be a real test to see whether they’re going to follow the Elizabeth Warren-Bernie Sanders wing of the party or whether they’re going to return to the tradition of giving the President an up or down vote on who is the Supreme Court nominee.”

“There is going to be some tension between their political instructions from their leadership and their enlightened self-interest, but I bet enlightened self-interest wins every time.”

Senator John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, is a member of the Senate Finance, Intelligence, and Judiciary Committees.