McCaskill meets with Trump's Supreme Court nominee

“I have got a series of cases that I have got and will ask him to define which they are,” McCaskill, D-Mo., said before Gorsuch arrived for the private, late-afternoon meeting.

Afterwards, she released a short statement saying only that she looked forward to seeing his confirmation hearing.

Hers will be a key vote in the Senate’s deliberations on whether to confirm Trump’s nominee, who is now a judge on the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Her meeting with the nominee, along with the nominee’s meetings with other potential Democratic swing votes, were being closely followed.

The Republican National Committee issued a statement noting Trump’s landslide victory in Missouri in November and complimenting McCaskill for “hopefully … showing that she is listening to the people she represents, rather than liberal special interests.”

McCaskill also is scheduled to have a private conversation with Trump on Thursday, either by phone or in a delegation of Democratic senators, many of them from states that voted for Trump in November.

In Missouri’s case, that margin of victory was a landslide 18.5-percentage points.

Gorsuch’s meeting with McCaskill was his 23rd with senators, and he has gotten high praise from Republicans. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who has not yet met with the nominee, has called him “the right choice.”

But some Democrats have complained that Gorsuch has not answered their questions. McCaskill said she hoped to get more of a sense of Gorsuch’s judicial philosophy by asking about specific cases.

The debate between originalism and activism perpetually comes up in judicial nominees. The former denotes a view that strictly interprets the Constitution, while the latter describes a philosophy where judges more liberally apply the law for judicial remedy.

McCaskill also said she would ask Gorsuch for his take on Trump’s rhetorical attacks on members of the judiciary who have temporarily stayed enforcement of his executive actions to temporarily ban immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Trump called one a “so-called judge.”

“Foundational to our government is checks and balances, and it would be helpful if all three branches respected that and understood it,” McCaskill said.

“So far, I am not sure that the president is really keen on that part. I think business people forget that the reason that our democracy has worked is because it isn’t just one group that can kind of rule the roost. So we will see.”

In a meeting with a different senator, Gorsuch reportedly called Trump’s comments “demoralizing” and “disheartening.”

McCaskill is among a handful of Democrats who will be key to whether Gorsuch can get through a divided Senate.

Sixty votes are still necessary under Senate rules for a Supreme Court nominee to advance to a final vote, where a simple majority would be required for Gorsuch to be named to the court.

Republicans have 52 of the 100 Senate seats. Assuming all 52 vote for Gorsuch, Republicans would need eight Democrats to join them under current Senate rules. McCaskill is among 10 Democrats who face re-election next year in states that Trump won.

McCaskill would risk upsetting that Trump base with a vote against the nominee. But she would face a potential backlash on her left if she voted for a jurist that most of her fellow Democrats opposed.

However, Republicans — including Trump — have suggested they could change Senate rules and require a simple majority to push Gorsuch through.

In the past, senators have voted against filibusters as well as against nominees, under an unwritten agreement that presidents deserve up-or-down votes on all but the most controversial nominees. That could also be one option open to McCaskill and colleagues potentially on the fence on Gorsuch.

Two of the last three Republican appointments to the court — Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — received fewer than 60 votes on final confirmation, but benefited when some of those who voted against them also refused to go along with a filibuster.

But the current Senate is so bitterly divided that the filibuster has increasingly been used as a legislative weapon.

Currently, the Senate has 11 Democrats who voted against Alito in 2006, including Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Three of them — Maria Cantwell of Washington, Tom Carper of Delaware and Bill Nelson of Florida — also voted against filibustering that nomination, rejecting an effort to block the final vote by then-Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts.

As journalists were being escorted out of the room Wednesday, McCaskill, a former prosecutor in Kansas City, and Gorsuch exchanged stories about serving on jury duty. McCaskill served on a jury hearing a civil case in St. Louis last year.

Gorsuch told her that he, too, had served on a jury.

“I couldn’t believe I got picked,” McCaskill said.

Responded Gorsuch: “Me neither. And I went to the bathroom and I came back and I was the foreperson.”