Neil Gorsuch is the best possible choice for a Supreme Court, and he’s the one conservatives need. | Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Last week, President Donald Trump came through on another campaign promise (which he is surprisingly very good at doing) and announced his nomination for the Supreme Court. For the last year, conservatives have been dreading the announcement of who would replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. There was fear that the person nominated as Scalia’s replacement would be his intellectual foil.
Then, during his candidacy, then-candidate Trump released a list of names of judges he would consider nominating to the Supreme Court. And to the surprise of many, they were excellent. Conservatives rejoiced! Kind of. Who knew if he’d actually nominate any of them? Who knew if he’d win?
Fast forward to Friday, when Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and conservatives actually rejoiced. Not only is Gorsuch a worthy successor to Scalia, he is also the anti-Trump that is necessary on the court.
A bit of background on Gorsuch: He is currently on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (oddly enough, the 10th Circuit is also the court on which Trump’s sister serves). He was in the same Harvard Law graduating class as former President Barack Obama. In 2006, a unanimous vote, which included Senators Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden, approved Gorsuch for the 10th Circuit Court.
And, most importantly, he is a strict constructionist and an originalist; exactly what Scalia would’ve wanted.
He is the anti-Trump that Trump needs to show that he is not the authoritarian monster that he is being accused of becoming. In my column about what Trump should do in his first 100 days, I remarked that the best thing for Trump to do would be to choose the anti-him to prove he’s not what people are afraid of: a crazy fascist. With Gorsuch, Trump has chosen wonderfully.
He is an excellent choice and everything that conservatives could’ve asked for, if not more. According to the philosophies of strict constructionism and originalism, the Framers’ intent does not matter. It’s all about what they wrote and how that written word applies to the law. The Constitution is not meant to be interpreted, it is meant to be read.
He’s also a great example of what a judge should be. Justice Scalia always talked about how a good judge should not always be happy with his decisions; he should not always agree with his findings.
In 2005, Gorsuch wrote a piece for conservative magazine and intellectual think-place National Review titled “Liberals & Lawsuits.” In it, he wrote, “This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary.”
He also said during his speech accepting the nomination, “A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge, stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.”
This is exactly what America needs in a judge. This is exceptional. Both of these quotes exemplify how Gorsuch takes his job seriously.
He also makes amazing legal decisions. There are many decisions I could pull up to exemplify why Gorsuch is fantastic choice, but there are a couple that stand out.
In 2015, Gorsuch wrote in favor of Little Sisters of the Poor. Little Sisters of the Poor is a Catholic charity which the Obama administration sued for not providing birth control. Good litmus test: are you suing nuns? If the answer is yes, you need to check yourself.
Gorsuch ruled correctly in favor of the Little Sister of the Poor, referring to their freedom to exercise their religion (the Free Exercise Clause). Unsurprisingly, Senators like Chuck Schumer are calling Gorsuch out for this. Apparently he is siding with a corporation. That speaks for itself.
He also is better than Scalia on one thing: the Chevron doctrine. The Chevron doctrine is a long standing ruling that states that in some complicated cases, the courts should defer to the federal agencies to interpret that law. This is pretty terrible, seeing as interpretation is the whole point of the judicial branch.
In the 2016 case Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, Gorsuch ruled against the Chevron doctrine. Gorsuch not only made the correct constitutional decision, he made the best possible decision.
The process to confirm Gorsuch should be easy, seeing as he is a fantastic choice, but given how the process for conservative SCOTUS picks usually goes, this is sure to be a long fight. Just ask Clarence Thomas. In the end, though, Neil Gorsuch is exactly who Trump needed.
Assistant opinion editor Jorden Smith is a political science and creative writing junior and can be reached at [email protected]
