Neil Gorsuch goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee room for his marathon confirmation hearings on Monday. | Getty 5 pieces of Gorsuch's record that Democrats will attack On contraception, Guantanamo and Trump, Democrats are ready to attack.

Senate Democrats have scoured the smorgasbord of Neil Gorsuch’s rulings, writings and e-mails to craft their lines of attack against the Supreme Court nominee.

Here are five parts of Gorsuch’s record that Democrats plan to pick apart during this week’s confirmation hearings:


1) Contraception and Obamacare

Since Gorsuch was nominated Jan. 31, numerous Democratic senators have pointed to one major red flag in his legal opinions during his time on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: How he ruled on Obamacare’s contraceptive coverage mandate.

In Hobby Lobby vs. Sebelius, Gorsuch ruled in favor of the Green family, the owners of the craft store giant that sued the Obama administration over the Affordable Care Act requirement that employers provide contraceptive coverage to its female workers. And when an order of nuns sued the administration with a similar protest in Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, he sided with the nuns even as the full 10th Circuit denied a rehearing of the case.

Gorsuch’s defenders frame his decisions as a classic case of protecting religious freedom, but pro-abortion rights groups that have mobilized against the nominee argue that installing Gorsuch on the nation’s most powerful court would erode key health protections for women. Gorsuch’s opponents also worry about what his views on religious freedom could mean for gay rights cases were he confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Key line: “No doubt, the Greens’ religious convictions are contestable. Some may even find the Greens’ beliefs offensive. But no one disputes that they are sincerely held religious beliefs. This isn’t the case, say, of a wily businessman seeking to use an insincere claim of faith as cover to avoid a financially burdensome regulation. And to know this much is to know the terms of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act apply.” — Gorsuch’s concurring opinion in Hobby Lobby vs. Sebelius

2) Tenure at the Bush Justice Department

A trove of documents recently released by the Justice Department reveal Gorsuch was extensively involved in defending the anti-terror policies of the George W. Bush administration — a controversial period that is sure to be scrutinized by Democrats.

Tucked inside more than 175,000 pages of DOJ documents are several pages that show Gorsuch at the epicenter of the battle over the Bush-era detainee policies. Gorsuch, who served as principal deputy associate attorney general from June 2005 until he was confirmed to the bench the following summer, even visited the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and recommended that federal judges visit Gitmo to become “more sympathetic” to the Bush administration’s detainee policies.

The e-mails give further glimpses of how Gorsuch may view the bounds of executive power. But his conservative allies say his time at DOJ should be viewed more as an attorney defending a client — in this case, the U.S. government — rather than his personal views.

“It was not Neil Gorsuch’s job to make policy decisions about how to conduct the affairs of state in connection with the war on terror,” said Leonard Leo, a senior official on leave from the conservative Federalist Society who is advising Trump on the Supreme Court. “His job as the lawyer was to advise the client on legal approaches to the objectives they were seeking.”

Key line: “If the DC judges could see what we saw, I believe they would be more sympathetic to our litigating positions … Habeas counsel have been eager to testify (sometimes quite misleadingly) about conditions they’ve witnesses [sic]; a visit, or even just the offer of a visit, might help dispel myths and build confidence in our representations to the Court about conditions and detainee treatment.” — Gorsuch’s Nov. 10, 2005 e-mail to other DOJ officials, recommending a trip to Gitmo for federal judges

3) Trump and judicial independence

The president is not shy when it comes to attacking those who have disagreed with his agenda — including members of the federal judiciary — and it’s a safe bet you’ll hear the word “Trump” frequently emanating from Democrats during the marathon four-day set of hearings.

Trump famously dismissed Judge James Robart, who temporarily blocked the first version of Trump’s controversial migration ban, as a “so-called” judge. Back in the campaign, Trump questioned whether an Indiana-born judge could rule fairly in lawsuits involving Trump University because of the jurist’s Mexican heritage and Trump’s hardline views on immigration.

As Trump’s attack on Robart engulfed the news cycle, Gorsuch privately told some senators that he found such comments “disheartening” and “demoralizing.” Gorsuch’s team tried to downplay his remarks, saying he was referring to general assaults on the judiciary. But it was widely viewed as a tactic for Gorsuch to show some independence from Trump. Whether it actually helps win over key Democratic votes is still up in the air.

Key line: “He got a little bit emotional and he said that any attack, or any criticism, of his ‘brothers and sisters of the robe,’ is an attack or a criticism on everybody wearing the robe as a judge. I think that's something that this body should be pretty excited to hear someone say who's been nominated to the high Court. He said it is incredibly disheartening to hear things that might undermine the credibility and the independence of the judiciary.” — Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), on his private meeting with Gorsuch

4) Workers' rights

Democrats have already telegraphed that they see a major vulnerability in Gorsuch’s rulings for large companies and institutions over sympathetic plaintiffs.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer held a news conference last week with people that the New York Democrat said had been victimized by Gorsuch’s legal decisions. Among his guests: the Hwang children, whose mother sued Kansas State University because she was denied an extension of her six-month leave of absence caused by her cancer diagnosis. Gorsuch sided against Hwang, who died last year.

Another speaker at Schumer’s presser was Alphonse Maddin, who had been fired by TransAm Trucking because he left behind a tractor-trailer after finding himself stranded in sub-zero temperatures while driving through Illinois. TransAm was fined for dismissing Maddin and the 10th Circuit upheld that fine, but Gorsuch dissented from the decision.

Conservatives say the overall argument is undercut by the fact that Democratic-appointed judges have joined with Gorsuch in some of those opinions. For instance, one of the three judges who ruled against Hwang was appointed by President Bill Clinton.

Key line: “Ms. Hwang’s is a terrible problem, one in no way of her own making, but it’s a problem other forms of social security aim to address. The Rehabilitation Act seeks to prevent employers from callously denying reasonable accommodations that permit otherwise qualified disabled persons to work — not to turn employers into safety net providers for those who cannot work.” — Gorsuch’s opinion in Hwang vs. Kansas State

5) Chevron deference

Gorsuch has shown deep skepticism toward the so-called Chevron deference, a longstanding doctrine that calls on judges to defer to how federal agencies interpret key laws. This philosophy arose out of the landmark 1984 Supreme Court case, Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

Democrats say the Chevron standard has led to key victories in environmental and labor policies and that Gorsuch’s views could put those gains at risk. That, Democrats argue, is especially alarming in the era of Trump, who has launched a major assault on federal regulations.

“I’m concerned about the court becoming another political institution and if they no longer are forced to give deference to agency determinations, it makes it much easier for the court to become politicized,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in an interview after meeting privately with Gorsuch.

Key line: “[T]he fact is Chevron and Brand X permit executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth.” – Gorsuch’s concurring opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela vs. Lynch