NG: I feel it has been a calling and an honor to be part of it.
Hatch: Fourth Amendment protects against right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Hatch: How should a judge approach interpretation of the 4th Amendment when technology was obviously not even imagined by the founders?
Gorsuch: US v. Jones, from Supreme Court, re attachment of GPS tracking device to a car. Modern technology -- how do you apply the original Constitution to that? Court went back and looked at the law.
Gorsuch: Attaching something to someone's property is a trespass at common law and would be considered a search. Has to be a search today, even though technology is obviously different.
Gorsuch: Can't be that Constitution is less protective of people's liberties than when it was drafted.
Hatch: Now asking about intellectual property in cases involving new technology. Should they confine themselves to analogous technologies?
Gorsuch: A very similar sort of question. We look back and find what the law was at the time and make analogies to current circumstances. Judges love analogies.
Gorsuch: Congress changes the law. Judges just interpret it as best they can from original understanding to current circumstances.
Hatch: Most Americans wonder why a nominee would talk about a gas station, but Chevron concept is very straightforward. Deference allows unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to rewrite the law.
Hatch: Any middle schooler can see how concept is at odds with separation of powers. I am a Chevron skeptic.
Hatch: Reexamining Chevron is not about being anti- or pro-regulation. It's about restoring constitutional separation of powers. It's about ensuring that bureaucracy abides by the law no matter what it's policy goals. Do you agree that there is nothing extreme or ideological when Court in Marbury v. Madison said it is emphatically the judiciary's job to say what the law is?
Hatch: Idea that you are no friend of the "little guy." But Noah Feldman, who calls himself a "liberal," wrote for Bloomberg that it is a terrible idea.
Hatch: Some critics question your independent track record and objectivity, and whether you would stand up to president who appointed you.
Gorsuch: A good judge doesn't give a whit about politics or the implication of her decision.
Gorsuch: I walk by a bust of Byron White everyday, in a courthouse named for him. When I do that, I think about his determination to get it right, no matter where it took him.
Gorsuch: If you look at my record, it demonstrates that. When I do dissent, I do so in about equal numbers from judges appointed by presidents from the two parties. But I hate even to describe them in those terms, because they are just judges.
Gorsuch: Ask the US Attorney's office in Colorado -- I give them a hard time. I make them square their corners. Cites three recent Fourth Amendment cases ruling for the defendant, against the government.
Hatch: in 2005, you wrote an op-ed criticizing efforts to achieve policy goals through the courts. I want to give you a chance to respond.
Gorsuch: Separation of powers. Judges would make very poor legislators. Can't elect us. Can't get rid of us. We don't have the chance to talk to people.
I get four law clerks for one year at a time. If you were to make laws, you wouldn't design a system where you'd let three older people with four law clerks straight out of law school legislate for a country of 320 million people.
Gorsuch: With all due respect to my law clerks, of course.
Hatch: Critics have tried to turn op-ed into gotcha moments -- e.g., your problem was with policy goals rather than lawsuits themselves.
Gorsuch: Courts are very important places for the vindication of civil rights. Unpopular voices get equal air time to popular views.
Gorsuch: One thing we lack is the ability to compromise. These bodies can put together a compromise.
Gorsuch: The problem lies on both sides of the aisle. I see lots of people who resort to court perhaps more quickly than they should.
Hatch: Liberal groups are claiming that you only represented corporations while in private practice, but your former law partner, David Frederick, who serves on the board of the liberal American Constitution Society, disagreed in an op-ed in the Washington Post.
Hatch asks that Frederick's op-ed be entered into the record.
Hatch: Is that an accurate description of your work?
Gorsuch: Yes, and grateful that David is here today.
Gorsuch: I wanted to go to a firm with a wide variety of clients because I thought it would make me a better lawyer and it did.
Gorsuch: My first client was a man who had bought a gravel pit but the previous owner wouldn't leave and stole all the gravel. We found a 100-year-old law barring "furtive mining," we filed a lawsuit, we won in county court. It may have been one of the highlights of my career when a juror came up to me and called me a young Perry Mason.
Gorsuch: We won the largest plaintiffs-side antitrust case affirmed in U.S. history. All sorts of clients, including pension funds, non-profits, corporations. It was a great and wonderful practice and I loved every minute of it.
Hatch: Liberal groups also say you favor employers over employees.