Judge Neil Gorsuch, a Federal Appeals Court judge, talked very modestly about following the orders of his "bosses" i.e. past Supreme Court decisions, precedent and following the law irrespective of his own beliefs, which he refused to discuss, begging off questions with the stock answer that it might dissuade or encourage future litigants. And that it really did not matter because he followed the law through precedent and statutes even if his personal views disagreed.
Judge Gorsuch is most certainly going to be confirmed; he has the votes and unknown parties have gathered $10 million to assist his nomination. Yet the hearings droned on for three days with often the same answers and the same half-dozen cases being cited although he has ruled on over 2000. He is a brilliant man, attended Columbia University and Harvard Law School -- the latter when Obama was there and knew him but not well. 'It's a big place' he explained when asked. He then went to Oxford under a Marshall scholarship and earned a doctorate.
Our elected politicians are earning their keep perhaps as another hearing is seeking to ferret out the truth about any connections or understandings between the Trump campaign and the Russians i.e. their government, intelligence, friends of Putin, the man himself, etc. This is being held in the other body, the House of Representatives, before the House Intelligence Committee. Given the line of questioning from the two parties, a casual observer might be forgiven for thinking that this in fact was two hearings: one on the leak of intelligence documents to the press -- a crime with a maximum ten-year prison sentence -- and the other a closer examination of the content of the resulting newspaper articles revealing the alleged connections and the parties from the Trump campaign.
The two being questioned were FBI Director James Comey and Admiral Michael Rogers the Director of National Intelligence as the hearing was ostensibly on Russian Cyber hacking and interference in the U.S. election. The oft-repeated answer to nearly every question: "I can't answer that because of the ongoing investigation." Another question: Since when did it become a crime to have business dealings with Russia?
In the blinkered view presented to the public by politicians and media, Russia is not to be trusted. It has seized Crimea, started a civil war in the Ukraine and is supporting the 'murderous' Assad in Syria -- in general thwarting U.S. initiatives, which is always an unforgivable crime. Who cares about facts.
The facts of course are unpleasant truths. The U.S. started the Syrian war importing fundamentalist fighters from Libya after Gaddafi's overthrow. The U.S. spent $5 billion in Ukraine to bring down a democratically elected government friendly to Russia, causing a response and a continuing civil war. Crimea which has a hugely majority Russian population wanted to be annexed to Russia, while the latter could not afford to lose its Black Sea naval base. What's more Crimea was added to the Ukraine administrative region as recently as the Khruschev era.
It is in the interests of a powerful few to have Russia as an enemy although it is the only country in the world able to vaporize the U.S. in a half-hour. Rational thinking might welcome it as a friend particularly in the fight against ISIS. Assad may not be an angel but his government is secular and his people actually do support him.
The real trouble is the U.S. political scene and the bought-and-paid-for politicians elected. Nothing will change unless private financing of elections is ended. Without legislation to that effect, nothing can change, certainly not through the courts when Judge Gorsuch occupies the ninth chair and the deciding vote on the Supreme Court. The crowning achievement of the elite was the Citizens United decision where a corporation became a person for campaign financing, opening huge coffers. Judge Gorsuch confirmed the view of corporate personification. So nothing will change; that much is clear.