In decade since confirmation, says Cruz, he has had an exemplary record.
Many Democrats probably believe they have no choice but to manufacture attacks against Gorsuch, says Cruz.
Characterizations of Gorsuch as being against the little guy are unfair, says Cruz.
Especially when many of these people were attacking Little Sisters of the Poor, says Cruz. Referring to legal challenge to birth control mandate.
Cruz accuses Dems of "attacking nuns" in Little Sisters of the Poor, says Dems need to look in the mirror on "attacking the little guy" accusations
Some of my Democratic colleagues have suggested that Gorsuch needs to be asked about Trump's actions. No one asked Ginsburg or Breyer about Clinton's actions, for example, says Cruz.
I have every confidence that Gorsuch will be confirmed, says Cruz.
Grassley just called Cruz "Senator Franken," who is next to speak. This draws a laugh.
Cruz concludes and Grassley says, "Thank you, Senator Franken."
Franken: question is not whether you are a man of conviction, but whether your understanding of Constitution will make real its promise of justice and equality to all Americans.
We must determine whether your interpretation of our laws and Constitution will unfairly favor corporations over working families, says Franken.
Justices have enormous power over our daily lives, says Franken. Purpose of these hearings is to allow people to meet you and decide whether you are qualified to serve.
"I have concerns," says Franken, based on Gorsuch's writings.
For hearing to serve its purpose, says Franken, you must answer the questions we ask: "fully, candidly, and without equivocation."
Important to acknowledge how you got here -- committee's failure to act on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, says Franken.
American people DID have a voice in decision of whom to appoint -- twice, says Franken.
Calls failure to consider Garland nom cynical and obstructionist.
Trump as a candidate openly discussed his litmus test for a nominee, says Franken: "The justices I'm going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent."
Franken praises Scalia as a man of "great humor"
"Justice Scalia embraced a rigid view of our Constitution," says Franken.
No one can dispute Scalia's love of Constitution, but the document that he loved was very different from the one I took an oath to uphold, says Franken.
This is an important moment in our history, says Franken. Public trust in our government and institutions is at an all time low, but that didn't happen overnight. It was, though, quickened by the Court, says Franken.
Roberts Court issues decision like Shelby County v. Holder (voting rights act) and AT&T v. Concepcion that reduce the ability of our citizens to participate. Citizens United was most egregious decision, says Franken.
In each of those decisions, Justice Scalia was in the majority. So as we evaluate potential successor, says Franken, I want to know how you share Scalia's judicial philosophy.
Your views may differ on administrative law, says Franken. Back to Chevron deference . . .
Gorsuch is taking notes often, as Molly observed earlier.
If past is prologue, says Franken, confirming you could mean more of the same for the Roberts Court.
"but if past in truly prologue, then I fear that confirming you would guarantee more of the same from the Roberts Court"
Spectators have been entering in small groups, which again leads me to wonder if there is much of a line to enter.
I see this hearing as an opportunity to learn more about your views, concludes Franken.
Grassley: We will take a five-minute break after next senator, who is Senator Ben Sasse from Nebraska.
The most important thing the Senate will do this year is arguably to confirm the next justice, says Sasse.
Cites robe as the organizing principle for his remarks. Why do they exist, Sasse asks?
Reasons are better summed up by current sitting judge: Robe doesn't make me any smarter, but serves as a reminder of what is expected of us. Also a reminder of relatively modest station we are meant to argue.
We buy our own robes, Sasse continues. Ours is the judiciary of "an honest black polyester." This is a statement by Gorsuch, he says.
Three points, says Sasse. First, it changes how we see the court.
Two , it reiterates the call of a judge to hte judge.
Robes make justices look all alike, so we can focus on the job they have to do.
Facts are objective, evaluated against laws.
Idea that empathy is an essential ingredient in decision is well meaning but misplaced, says Sasse.
Empathy is our role, says Sasse, but not a justice's.
Judge has a different job: to apply the law to the facts of a particular case. Judge's robe is there to remind us of that.
This is what we say when we believe in the rule of law. Not rule of men or women.
"Somebody famously said" about empathy, Sasse says. This is a reference to Sonia Sotomoyer.