May 3, 2017
Dear Sgt. Geresy,
Thank you for contacting me about Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I appreciate you taking the time to express your views. Your input is, and always will be, welcomed and appreciated.
I take very seriously the Senate’s constitutional duty to review and vote on nominees through the “advice and consent” process. One of the Senate’s most important responsibilities is to review the President's nominations to the federal judiciary. I believe judicial nominees should have a strong legal background, experience handling a variety of cases, and a fair approach to legal issues. Every individual nominated to serve on our nation’s highest court should be fully vetted. It is particularly important that nominees to the Supreme Court receive close review. As the highest court in the federal judiciary, the Supreme Court sets precedent on issues affecting all Americans. The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review allows it to determine whether legislative, executive, and state actions are in violation of the Constitution.
In evaluating Judge Gorsuch’s nomination, I thoroughly reviewed his record and his testimony in confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I also paid close attention to the Senate Judiciary Committee's recommendations. The Committee investigates each nominee's background and writings, as well as his or her previous rulings, and routinely consults outside experts on their views of a nominee’s qualifications. Past Supreme Court nominees have fully disclosed their previous rulings, legal interpretations, and writings to the Committee and discussed them at length in their confirmation hearings. Examining a nominee’s judicial approach is essential to reviewing his or her qualifications. Nearly every nominee considered by the full Senate has been voted out of the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support. This bipartisan process of reviewing judicial nominees helps ensure that our nation has a robust and fair justice system.
After thoroughly reviewing Judge Gorsuch’s record, I opposed his confirmation to the Supreme Court. On April 7, 2017, I voted against confirming his nomination. I am concerned that Judge Gorsuch’s judicial approach is out of step with mainstream Michigan values. Judge Gorsuch’s rulings indicate that he gives greater weight to the rights of corporations than the rights of individuals. I am disheartened that Judge Gorsuch was the only 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge to rule against a Detroit truck driver who was unfairly fired for not staying in his disabled trailer after waiting for hours in dangerously cold weather. Judge Gorsuch has also ruled against children with special needs who are seeking educational opportunities and women who want access to health care. In a recent case, Judge Gorsuch ruled that schools only need to provide meager accommodations to help children under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. During Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision against his position in this case, ruling that children deserve more. In addition, he has failed to acknowledge how deeply the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United has corrupted our government by opening the floodgates for special interest money to pour into our elections. It is essential that our Supreme Court Justices have a balanced and fair judicial approach that will fully consider our laws in light of the interests and rights of everyday Americans.
Thank you again for contacting me. I enjoy hearing from you and hope that you take the time to contact me again soon. For more information, please feel free to visit my website, http://www.peters.senate.gov, or find me on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram @SenGaryPeters.
Gary C. Peters
United States Senator
Me Here......Thanks for the reply I got today in an e-mail, but.........
I am insulted that you feel that Michiganders like me that value and respect the US Constitution are "out of the mainstream".
In the ruling where now Associate Judge Gorsuch ruled against the Detroit truck driver did it ever occur to you that the law was at fault? If legislators like yourself author a bad law, are judges supposed to fix it or follow it? I think the later.
Citizens United case is an example where the US Supreme Court had enough of legislators taking away citizen's First Amendment Free Speech rights and returned to the people that most precious right. Now why do you have a problem with that? Or do you believe that only your side should be heard? Citizens United should be a major ruling you should be applauding and not fearing. This to you should be the same as Roe v. Wade. Or is the only special interest money that should be allowed is that favoring your side that proper? Fair is fair.