First, the Constitution was not amended prior to the election. As many of my colleagues will recall, the Burmese Constitution unreasonably restricts … - Mitch McConnell

This is a judge who is known for deciding cases based on how the law is actually written, not how he wishes it were written, even when it leads to results that conflict with his own political beliefs. He understands that his role as a judge is to interpret the law, not impose his own viewpoint. Here is how Judge Gorsuch himself put it: "A judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad judge, reaching for results he prefers rather than those the law compels." Some of our colleagues and some others on the left see the role of a judge very differently. In last year's Presidential debate, our former colleague, Secretary Clinton, stated her view that a Supreme Court Justice--now listen to this--ought to look more favorably on certain political constituencies than others; that it was the job of the Supreme Court to "stand on the side" of this group or another over that one. Some of our current colleagues seem to share this view. The assistant Democratic leader said that what is important to him are the political views of a Supreme Court nominee, what or perhaps whom they are going to stand for.

Allowing appropriate constitutional changes to pass through the Parliament would have represented a tangible demonstration of the Burmese Government's commitment to both political reform and to a freer and fairer election this November. But when the measures were put to a vote on June 25, the government's allies exercised the very undemocratic power the Constitution grants them to stymie the effort. So what kinds of messages do these actions send us? They bring the Burmese Government's continued commitment to democracy into question. If you were truly committed to democracy, why would you continue a provision like that, which to most of the world is simply quite laughable or outrageous? They also raise fundamental questions about the balloting this fall, increasing the prospect of an election being perceived as something other than the will of the people, even if its actual conduct proves to be free and fair. It is hard to see how that is in anybody's interest. The second deeply troubling consideration is the apparent widespread, if not universal, disenfranchisement of the Rohingya population. For all the ill treatment the Rohingya have had to endure in their history, at least they had once been able to vote and run for office in Burma. They voted and fielded a candidate for office in both the 2010 election and the 1990 election, but, alas, no more.

When he graduated from law school, Judge Gorsuch did not just clerk for one Supreme Court Justice, he clerked for two. They were Justices nominated by Presidents of different political parties--Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, and Byron White, who was nominated by JFK. Judge Gorsuch received a unanimously "well qualified" rating by the American Bar Association when he was nominated to his current position on the court of appeals. He was confirmed without any votes in opposition. That is right--not a single Democrat opposed Judge Gorsuch's confirmation, not Senator Barack Obama, not Senator Hillary Clinton, not Senators Joe Biden or Ted Kennedy. In fact, not a single one of the Democrats who still serve with us opposed him, including the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein, and the Democratic leader himself, Senator Schumer. In the coming days, I hope and expect that all Senate colleagues will again give him fair consideration, just as we did for the nominees of newly elected Presidents Clinton and Obama.