Three Years Later, Gorsuch Delivers

[Elderberry]

Townhall by Mike Davis and David Feder 4/10/2020

Today is the three-year anniversary of Justice Gorsuch’s swearing-in as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.  Although still early, Justice Gorsuch has already proven to be a grand slam for anyone who cares about interpreting the Constitution as written; for anyone who cares about the differences between judges and legislators; and for anyone who cares about protecting individual liberty. 

As a judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Justice Gorsuch was widely recognized as a leading proponent of the judicial philosophy known as “originalism.”  That term is simply a fancy label for a straightforward concept: judges should adhere to what’s in the Constitution and not what isn’t.  An originalist understands that the people themselves decided what rights should be removed from the democratic process when they adopted the Constitution; it is not for a handful of unelected judges to change that bargain.  As then-Judge Gorsuch eloquently put it: the Constitution “isn’t some inkblot on which litigants may project their hopes and dreams,” but rather “a carefully drafted text judges are charged with applying according to its original public meaning.” 

After his elevation, the Justice has remained true to that philosophy.  Time and again when confronting a constitutional question he has refused to make it up or rule based on his personal policy preferences.  Instead, he’s rolled up his sleeves and done the hard work of parsing the litany of sources that bear on the Constitution’s original meaning.  As former law clerks, we can attest that he leaves no stone unturned in his search for the original understanding.  It is not always glamorous or easy but the Justice does it cheerfully all the same.  He does the hard work in every case, even if some might not think the case terribly important.  Indeed, a review of his record will reveal that he has practiced originalism across the board, whether analyzing the Contracts Clause (Sveen v. Melin), the Double Jeopardy Clause (Gamble v. United States), the Fourth Amendment (Carpenter v. United States), or some other provision still.   

More: https://townhall.com/columnists/mikedavis/2020/04/10/three-years-later-gorsuch-delivers-n2566664