Colorado native Gorsuch establishes conservative cred in 1st year on court
Associated Press Published 8:27 p.m. MT Nov. 25, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/ya34bcdz
WASHINGTON – More than 2,000 conservatives in tuxedos and gowns recently filled Union Station's main hall for a steak dinner and the chance to cheer the man who saved the
Supreme Court from
liberal control.
Justice Neil Gorsuch didn't disappoint them, just as he hasn't in his first
seven months on the Supreme Court.
"Tonight I can report that a person can be both a publicly committed originalist and textualist and be confirmed to the Supreme Court," Gorsuch said to sustained applause from members of the Federalist Society, using terms by which conservatives often seek to distinguish themselves from more liberal judges.
The 50-year-old justice has been
almost exactly what conservatives hoped for and liberals dreaded when he joined the court in April. He has
consistently, even
aggressively, lined up with the court's
most conservative justices. He has even split with Chief Justice John Roberts, viewed by some as insufficiently conservative because of his two opinions upholding President Barack Obama's health law.
During arguments,
Gorsuch has asked repeatedly about the original understanding of parts of the Constitution and laws, and he has
raised questions about some long-standing court precedents,
including the civil rights landmark ruling on "one person, one vote.
Liberals' despair about Gorsuch goes beyond his judicial actions. He occupies a seat once held by Justice Antonin Scalia which they thought Obama would get to fill. But Senate Republicans refused to consider Obama's nominee, a strategy that paid off when Donald Trump unexpectedly won the White House.
At the Federalist Society, Gorsuch recognized the improbable turn of events that led him from an appellate judgeship in his native Colorado to America's highest court.
If someone had told Gorsuch
a year ago what would
soon transpire, "I would have said that you had taken way too much advantage of my home state's generous drug laws," he said....
...Early reviews of Gorsuch's time on the court have varied with the ideological bent of his reviewers.
While his confirmation was pending, the liberal Alliance for Justice worried that Gorsuch would often embrace the most conservative outcome on the high court.
"Our concerns were confirmed," said Nan Aron, the group's president.
Daniel Epps, a Washington University law professor in St. Louis and onetime law clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy, said he finds Gorsuch's style sometimes grating,
less so the substance of his questions at arguments.
During a high-profile argument about politics in redistricting in October, Gorsuch began a question by suggesting that
"maybe we can just for a second talk about the arcane matter, the Constitution."
To Epps, the tone was all wrong, especially for the new guy on the nine-member court. "I'd love to see a bit more recognition that the court deals with really hard questions that many people, including his colleagues, have struggled with for a long time. If someone thinks he has all the answers, maybe he's missing something important," Epps said....
...His co-host, Ian Samuel, said there has been
"a hysterical overreaction" to Gorsuch's questions in the courtroom. Samuel, a professor at Harvard Law School and former Scalia law clerk, said Gorsuch has an obvious interest in
questions about accountability in the American system of government and control over the court system.
"It's better that he puts it out there and says this is who I am. I don't think he cares whether some people think it's shocking," Samuel said.
Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society executive vice president who has advised Trump on judicial picks, also took issue with Gorsuch's critics when he introduced the justice at the dinner.
"They mischaracterize candor and a demand for rigorous analysis as polarizing," Leo said....
...Gorsuch made no apologies either for the
substance of
his questions and writing, or his style. He talked at length about the importance of seeking out the meaning of the Constitution and laws as they were understood when they written.
"Originalism has regained its place at the table of constitutional interpretation, and textualism in the reading of statutes has triumphed. And neither one is going anywhere on my watch," Gorsuch said.
He went on to note that "some pundits have expressed bewilderment" about the questions he asks in court.
"But while I have you here tonight, I thought I might just settle the matter once and for all by taking a poll. ... Should I just keep on asking about the text and original meaning of the Constitution?" he asked.
The response was predictably and overwhelmingly in favor.