The ever-reliable New York Times has unearthed documents showing that, twelve years ago, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch supported the harsh interrogation policies of the Bush Administration.
The Times' article has a breathless quality to it, but there's a problem with its outrage: At the time, Gorsuch was Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General. In other words, as one-time Acting AG Peter Keisler notes -- in a quotation placed far down the article -- Gorsuch, "helped shape arguments and litigation strategy but not the underlying national security policy decisions, which 'had already been made'...These are cases he was working on as an attorney for [his client] and advancing its positions."
Readers should correct me if I'm wrong, but, when a lawyer takes on the defense of a child killer, or some gruesome sex-torture murderer, doesn't the Times, together with its defense bar friends, say that the attorney is "fulfilling the highest and most honorable calling of the legal profession"? Advancing the government's case for effectively extracting intelligence from terrorists, however, gives you dirty hands?
Welcome to the case against Judge Gorsuch.