Elizabeth Warren and NARAL President Ilyse Hogue on the Dangers of Neil Gorsuch

If Gorsuch is appointed, "women's rights are all up for grabs."

Alex WongGetty Images

Earlier this month, Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts turned viral sensation, and Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, hand delivered over one million petitions to all 100 Senate offices on Capitol Hill opposing Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.

You were supposed to hear about it. You probably didn't.

Under "normal" circumstances, Hogue insists, the demonstration would have gotten "a massive amount of attention." But of course, these aren't normal circumstances.

While Warren and Hogue (backed by The People's Defense, a speedily assembled coalition formed solely to voice opposition to Neil Gorsuch) collected a seven-figure expression of civilian alarm, the Trump administration tried to fend off the latest round of allegations over its association with Russian officials during the election, witnessed the failure of its first (and maybe last) attempt to clock a serious legislative accomplishment within its first 100 days, and combated the now-weekly slate of stories about in-fighting in the White House. There's been a lot to process.

But Warren, Hogue, and the People's Defense are ready to do everything in their collective power to keep Gorsuch off the bench. And Warren, especially, has considerable muscle. The U.S. senator can trigger a filibuster that would require Gorsuch to meet a 60-vote threshold in order to take his seat on the court. And oh, is she prepared to do it. Assuming she or any one of her peers decides to make that crucial move, Senate Republicans, who control the chamber, have the option to "go nuclear;" that is to manipulate congressional rules so that Gorsuch would need only a simple majority vote to win his appointment, breaking with all historical precedent for Supreme Court nominees.

We reached Hogue and Warren by phone to discuss why all eyes should be on Gorsuch, the most "well groomed" nominee ever to come for your reproductive freedom.

For a Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch seems to have gotten a little lost in the melee over the past few weeks. With everything else that's going on, why are you so focused on him?

Elizabeth Warren: In [a] normal time, the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to be a Supreme Court justice would be talked about everywhere because his views are so out of the mainstream with most people in this country. But these are not normal times; there is so much going on in so many places that this hasn't gotten the attention it needs to get.

Ilyse Hogue: Now that the healthcare battle [is over], we certainly expect all eyes to turn toward the Supreme Court both for the obvious reasons, like the fact that justices serve lifetime appointments, and for political reasons: Trump and the GOP need a win. The [healthcare loss] will make them all the more desperate to get this through. His approval ratings are in the tank. They're terrified this Russia investigation is going to get worse and worse.

Courtesy NARAL Pro-Choice America

How do you respond to people who feel like, fine, you might not like him, but Gorsuch has the credentials; he's well educated; he has experience?

Hogue: Make no mistake: There was an absolute strategy by the Trump administration to pitch this guy as a "nice guy." Given all these cabinet nominees who were so supremely unqualified for their positions and the potential nominees that were floated for this Supreme Court seat who were just so unacceptable, when Gorsuch was picked it was like, "Oh, he's a judge nominated for a judge's position. That makes sense." I really do appreciate the fact that people want to able to just find some relief in something, but the problem is that not only are we falling into a trap that was set for us by the Trump administration, but also that just seeming like a nice guy who likes puppies is a really irresponsibly low bar by which to evaluate someone who is going to have control over our lives for a lifetime.

Warren: Gorsuch has been well groomed for his media moment. But what matters are the legal opinions that Gorsuch has written. He has had chances—over and over and over—to choose between the rights of giant corporations and the rights of individuals, the rights of women, the rights of employees, the rights of consumers. Time after time, Neil Gorsuch has chosen the corporations, and I hope we're going to talk about the Hobby Lobby [decision].

Let's talk about it right now.

Warren: I bring it up every chance I get, because, in that case, Neil Gorsuch decided that a corporation's religious liberty rights were more important than women employees' rights to have access to birth control. That's disqualifying. I am done. Right there. That's all I need to know.

But I have to be clear: It's not the only time he has sided with corporations over real people. He has done it again and again and again, but that's one that should make people all across this country realize that he cannot have a lifetime position on the United States Supreme Court. No one reviews the decisions of the Supreme Court.


How could someone like Gorsuch make or swing decisions that would benefit corporations?

Warren: We have to remember that corporations and a handful of shadowy millionaires and billionaires gave millions of dollars [to Republicans in Congress] to keep this Supreme Court seat open. Why did they do that? They wanted a Supreme Court justice who would favor their interests—not the interests of women, of employees, of consumers. They made a list of who they said would be acceptable Supreme Court nominees for them, and Donald Trump promised to pick somebody off that list. This is one promise he followed through on! And now those same people [have] poured million of dollars into an ad campaign to sell Neil Gorsuch to the American people. Why? Because they expect a return on their investment. Because they expect he will be a reliable vote in the Supreme Court for corporate interests, not for individual interests.

Hogue: Hobby Lobby gave corporations control over women's rights. But that was just one case. And there are a number of ways that can play out in the future, particularly now that most women are by necessity in the workforce for their entire reproductive lives.

Corporations have control over our contraception, healthcare, prenatal care, over whether we are able to pump at work, and I say this as someone who did, and even in a good workplace, it's hard. All this is in corporate control. And when corporations deny us those rights, it doesn't just affect us. It affects our families.

But what we also need to remember about Hobby Lobby in the context of the Trump administration, and it's so important that it actually sends a chill down my spine, is that it was done under the guise of religious freedom. That can be expanded in a lot of frightening new ways. I really believe the framers [of the Constitution] didn't mean by "religious freedom," the freedom to persecute others.

Beyond 'Hobby Lobby', one of the cases that's been most discussed is 'Roe v. Wade'. What's at stake? How likely is it that we could see that decision overturned?

Warren: Women's rights are all up for grabs. That's it.

Ilyse Hogue, during day three of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
AUL LOEB/AFPGetty Images

Hogue: Like many of these judges, he doesn't have many explicit rulings on abortion, but he does have three points that he has definitely decided on that draw a really clear picture to us when you connect the dots. One is Hobby Lobby, which we've already covered.

The second is the decision he made in which he sided with the government of Utah in defunding Planned Parenthood. [Editor's note: An earlier ruling had mandated that Utah. Gov. Gary Herbert restore funding he'd stripped from Planned Parenthood after videos were released that seemed to show Planned Parenthood officials engaged in the sale of fetal tissue from abortions. Herbert had accepted that ruling. But Gorsuch later wrote an opinion in which he claimed the earlier ruling was flawed and that Herbert was "free as a matter of law to suspend the funding in question."]

And the third one is his work on right-to-die legislation. For those of us who have been doing work for a while, we know that opposing the right to die is really about defining personhood, holding a position that life begins at conception and once life is in this world you can't do anything to take it out.

If the nominee can't get 60 votes, then get another nominee.

Those three issues combined with the fact that the president has said his litmus test for potential Supreme Court justices was that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. The preponderance of evidence is way too significant to overlook.

It's going to be up to the Democratic senators, presumably, to filibuster this nominee. Sen. Warren, you've said you'd back a filibuster. Why?

Warren: I truly support filibusters on Gorsuch. The reason there is a 60-vote threshold on a Supreme Court nominee is precisely because there will be no further review on this person. That means we need someone who can gain enough bi-partisan support that the American people can have confidence that this person will put the people's interests first, not [any one party's]. That is what this is all about. This is not about obstruction.

But you've said you're not even sure a vote should occur, yes? You're prepared to hold off until the FBI concludes its Russia investigation?

Warren: Yes; just keep in mind what's happening now. Just this week, the FBI announced that there's an active investigation into the connection between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Now, one of two things will happen at the conclusion of that investigation; either there is nothing there and it all goes away, or there is a serious problem and that could mean criminal indictment and prosecution. If that's the case, it's likely to be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. It would not be appropriate for Donald Trump's nominee to cast the deciding vote in a case involving Donald Trump, his campaign, and collusion with the Russian government.

So, now what? You've made your case and at least one million people agree with you. What can people who feel the same way do to make their voices heard?

Hogue: Call you senators. I don't care if you live in a red state or a blue state. Your senators need to hear about this. We know that call volume is picking up, and they're taking notice. On April 1st, which is when the hearings and the vote would take place, we're having days of action nationwide. We would love everyone to participate. It's that important. You can find all the information on PeoplesDefense.org.

This, this issue, is the true test. For Democratic leadership, it's whether they're going to listen to the voices of the people and do everything that is required of them. But it's a test for Republicans as well. They know this is wrong. Are they callous and malicious enough to erode our democracy just because they want to get someone on the court who will do their extreme conservative and corporate bidding? If they are, nothing less than our democracy is at stake.

This interview has been edited for concision and clarity.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below