Should Judge Gorsuch Answer?

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/opinion/should-judge-gorsuch-answer.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Charles E. Schumer, the senior senator from New York and the Senate minority leader, should know better (“We Won’t Be Fooled Again,” Sunday Review, Feb. 12). Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, acted properly by not responding to Senator Schumer’s questions: The courts and judges do not deal with hypotheticals.

Judge Gorsuch has been a member of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for more than a decade, and his fitness for the Supreme Court should be assessed by his opinions and rulings on the cases he participated in while on the bench.

Finally, it is important to note that without the support of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. — who Senator Schumer feels fooled him — the Affordable Care Act, arguably the Obama administration’s signature domestic legislative achievement that is under review by the new administration, might not have survived.

IRA SOHN

New York

To the Editor:

Judge Neil M. Gorsuch would not describe his views on a Muslim travel ban, executive power, voter fraud versus voting rights, Citizens United, the Bush v. Gore ruling or the Emoluments Clause in an hour discussion with Senator Charles E. Schumer.

Should we assume that Judge Gorsuch had the same nonanswers when he talked with President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Stephen K. Bannon before his nomination to the Supreme Court? Absolutely not.

They know his views on each of those important topics and beyond. He was coached by the Trump team to say nothing, shake a few hands and look reasonable and photogenic in his meetings with Mr. Schumer and the Senate Democrats.

JAMES NEUPERT

Atherton, Calif.

To the Editor:

Could we please stop using the baseball analogy that Supreme Court justices are like umpires, who just call balls and strikes? Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. used this in his confirmation hearings, and it’s been repeated often since, with approval. It’s dead wrong and leads all of us astray. It makes the job sound way too easy.

If we need a baseball analogy, the better one would be that Supreme Court justices first define the strike zone, and then they call a ball or a strike. Umpires don’t get to vary the strike zone, at least not to get a particular result. But Supreme Court justices do get to tinker with the legal strike zone to suit their judicial philosophies. And they get to do it in every case.

ERIC LUKINGBEAL

Granby, Conn.

The writer is a retired trial lawyer.

To the Editor:

An important fact to consider on the issue of asking questions of a potential Supreme Court justice before confirmation is that the refusal to answer questions about issues that might come before the court is a sham.

Supreme Court justices are each entitled to the final say on whether or not to recuse themselves from a case. If a justice has a notion that he can remain impartial, he is the only arbiter of the question. Therefore, the demand is fair; answer the questions, please.

DAVID F. TAMANINI

Harrisburg, Pa.

The writer is a retired lawyer.