Justice Gorsuch upholds Trump's campaign promise for the Court

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has used his appointment to the bench to reestablish a conservative majority. With controversial cases lined up for 2018, Justice Gorsuch's confirmation is seen as a win for the Trump administration in 2017. 

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters/File
Neil Gorsuch (r.) shakes hands with President Trump (l.) after the President announced his nomination to fill the empty seat on the US Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., U.S. on Jan. 31, 2017.

Eight months into his lifetime US Supreme Court appointment, Neil Gorsuch has given every indication through his votes in key cases and remarks from the bench he will be a stalwart of the conservative legal agenda, as President Trump promised.

Still early in his career as a justice that could span decades, Justice Gorsuch has already established himself as among the most conservative members of the top US court, and has not been shy about expressing his views, sometimes in idiosyncratic ways.

He also has made public appearances before conservative audiences, including a speech at the Republican president's Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington, that have drawn rebukes by liberal critics who questioned his independence from the president who nominated him.

Gorsuch's record so far suggests "he is going to be a reliably conservative vote," said Carolyn Shapiro, a law professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law.

Mr. Trump, who as a candidate promised to pick a justice in the mold of the late conservative icon Antonin Scalia, has set out to move the federal judiciary to the right. Gorsuch's appointment has been his biggest step yet toward that goal, restoring the high court's 5 to 4 conservative majority.

Gorsuch's April confirmation by the Republican-led Senate, despite strong Democratic opposition, provided one of Trump's biggest political victories since taking office in January.

Writing about Gorsuch on Twitter on Tuesday, Trump said he was "very proud of him and the job he is doing," and rejected a Washington Post report that he had considered rescinding Gorsuch's nomination this spring after the jurist said attacks on the judiciary like those that had been made by Trump were "disheartening" and "demoralizing."

The newspaper reported that Trump had vented angrily to advisers that Gorsuch may not be sufficiently loyal. Trump responded that he had "never even wavered."

As the court rolls into 2018 with some big rulings ahead – on free speech, gay rights, voting rights, and employee rights – legal experts said Trump will be able to rely on Gorsuch.

The new justice has delivered key votes backing Trump's travel ban on people from several Muslim-majority countries and on the death penalty, and embraced certain kinds of public funding for churches.

During arguments this month in one of the court's biggest cases of its current term, Gorsuch signaled sympathy for a conservative Christian baker who contends he was within his constitutional rights to refuse to create a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Gorsuch declined an interview request for this article.

'Not intimidated'

Inside the Supreme Court chambers and outside it, Gorsuch, a Coloradoan, speaks his mind.

"He is not intimidated about being the newest justice," said John Malcolm, a lawyer at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.

Gorsuch has regularly sided with his fellow conservative justices. In the legal fight over the three versions of Trump's travel ban, Gorsuch sided with the president on four different occasions. In June, he was one of three justices who would have let Trump's second travel ban go into full effect. The court voted 6 to 3 to allow a limited version of the ban.

On the death penalty, Gorsuch was among four conservative dissenters when the court in September granted a stay of execution for a Georgia inmate.

In April, in his first recorded vote on the court, he was part of a 5 to 4 conservative majority that declined a stay of execution request from an Arkansas inmate.

The court in 2018 is set to rule on two cases – one from Wisconsin and another from Maryland – involving the practice of drawing legislative districts in states in a way intended to entrench one party in power, known as partisan gerrymandering.

The rulings could influence US elections for decades. Based on the Oct. 3 oral argument in the Wisconsin case, in which Democratic voters challenged a Republican-drawn electoral map, it is unclear how the court will rule.

Gorsuch used a culinary analogy to express his doubts during the argument about the Democratic challengers' legal theory.

"It reminds me a little bit of my steak rub," Gorsuch said. "I like some turmeric, I like a few other little ingredients, but I'm not going to tell you how much of each. And so what's this court supposed to do, a pinch of this, a pinch of that?"

During a November speech hosted by the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, Gorsuch confidently touted his judicial ideology, stressing the importance of interpreting the US Constitution based on its original meaning and narrowly reading the text of laws passed by Congress.

"Tonight," he said to sustained applause, "I can report, a person can be both a committed originalist and textualist and be confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States."

This story was reported by Reuters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Justice Gorsuch upholds Trump's campaign promise for the Court
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today