ShareThis Page

Casey expresses 'real concerns' about Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch

| Thursday, Feb. 16, 2017, 6:18 p.m.
In this July 25, 2016 file photo, Sen, Bob Casey, D-Penn., speaks during the first day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia

U.S. Sen. Bob Casey's mind isn't made up on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, but Casey said Thursday he has “some real concerns” about Gorsuch's judicial philosophy and some of his past opinions.

“I will continue to review Judge Gorsuch's record and closely follow his answers to questions during his hearing before the Judiciary Committee in March and his written responses to questions submitted afterward,” Casey, D-Scranton, said in a statement.

Casey expressed concerns about some of Gorsuch's decisions on matters related to worker health and safety and protecting the rights of people with disabilities.

The Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, has “ruled overwhelmingly in favor of big corporations, and Judge Gorsuch's judicial record suggests he may continue that trend.”

U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Lehigh Valley, met with Gorsuch on Tuesday and said he would be “absolutely a ‘yes' vote” to confirm Gorsuch barring an “unanticipatable, shocking new discovery.”

Gorsuch, a federal appeals court judge in Colorado, would fill a vacancy created by the Feb. 13, 2016, death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. Four of the sitting justices were nominated by Republican presidents, and four were nominated by Democrats.

Tom Fontaine is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.