WATCH: Gorsuch Gives Detailed Answer on Workers’ Rights Cases He Ruled On

Gorsuch Gives Detailed Answer on Workers Rights Cases He Ruled On

If you managed to sit through every minute of Neil Gorsuch’s Tuesday hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, you’re a better man than I. The marathon hearings dragged on longer than a cricket match, and here’s what we established:

A) Democrats really don’t like Neil Gorsuch, no matter how qualified he may be.

B) See A.

Yeah, that’s pretty much it. President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee didn’t let it get to him, though. On the contrary, Gorsuch managed to parry almost all of the blows from the Democrats — especially those from California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Feinstein had tried to trap Gorsuch on worker’s rights — a key issue in the nomination process, as Gorsuch’s most controversial ruling, according to USA Today, involved a dissent in a case where a trucker was fired over refusing to drive equipment he said was unsafe.

Feinstein had asked whether Gorsuch could provide any evidence that he was “for the little guy.” This is humorous coming from a California Democrat, but Gorsuch politely played along.

“Senator, I know a case or two has been mentioned yesterday. Respectfully, I’d suggest that does not represent the body of my work,” Gorsuch said. “I’ve written 2,700 — I’ve participated in 2,700 — opinions over 10-and-a-half years. And if you want cases where I’ve ruled for ‘the little guy,’ as well as ‘the big guy,’ there are plenty of those, Senator. The Ute Indian tribe–“

“Would you be willing to submit some of them? It’s hard to read 2,700 cases,” Feinstein replied.

“Oh, I’ll name a bunch of them right now,” Gorsuch politely replied. “I’m sorry, senator, of course. Ute 5 and 6. Fletcher. The Rocky Flats case, which vindicated the rights of people who had been subject to pollution from large companies in Colorado — uranium pollution.

“I’d point you to the Magnesium case, similar pollution case in the Salt Lake City area. Colorado’s effort with renewable energy; upheld that. Orr v. City of Albuquerque, involving pregnancy discrimination in a police department in Albuquerque. WD Sports, a discrimination claim. Casey, Energy West, Crane, Simpson v. CU, involving young women who had been harassed by the football team. AM, Browder, Sutton — I can give you a long, long list.”

Oh, well, there are those.

You can watch the clip below:

The only irony more uproarious than hearing one of the Democrat Party’s most entrenched politicos using what one does “for the little guy” as a barometer for fitness for office is her awkward discovery he’s likely done a good deal more than she ever has.

According to CBS News, the hearings were adjourned at 8:54 p.m., as Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican, advised Gorsuch, “I don’t know if you’re a drinking man, but you may want to have a cocktail tonight.”

He was referring to the length of the hearings, which were gaveled in at 9:36 in the morning. However, even if it weren’t for winding down from the demanding duration of the proceedings, I still think Gorsuch ought to have himself a potent potable.

After all, how else to properly toast oneself for disassembling Dianne Feinstein on national TV?

Like us on Facebook – USA Liberty News

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter with your thoughts on Neil Gorsuch.

How do you think Neil Gorsuch handled Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s question? Scroll down to comment below!


H/T The Daily Caller