President Donald Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch, a federal appellate judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, as the next Supreme Court Justice. Judge Gorsuch is 49, a graduate of Columbia University, Harvard University (J.D.), and Oxford University (D.Phil.), where he studied Natural Law, and a former Supreme Court law clerk.
Gorsuch wrote a book titled, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. One quoted portion of the book states: "Human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable" and that" the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong."
He sided with the state of Utah's defunding of Planned Parenthood, and he supported the religious liberty arguments against forced abortion mandates under ObamaCare in Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor.
Gorsuch wrote two pieces relevant to the proper role of judges. The first is an opinion for National Review in 2005 on the subject of Judicial Activism. He stated:
Gorsuch wrote a book titled, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. One quoted portion of the book states: "Human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable" and that" the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong."
He sided with the state of Utah's defunding of Planned Parenthood, and he supported the religious liberty arguments against forced abortion mandates under ObamaCare in Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor.
Gorsuch wrote two pieces relevant to the proper role of judges. The first is an opinion for National Review in 2005 on the subject of Judicial Activism. He stated:
"This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there's little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose."
A few weeks after Justice Scalia's passing in 2016, Judge Gorsuch gave a lecture that details his judicial interpretation philosophy and honors Justice Scalia. This excellent article is something similar to what Professor Robert George and Justice Scalia would write:
"Respectfully, it seems to me an assiduous focus on text, structure, and history is essential to the proper exercise of the judicial function. That, yes, judges should be in the business of declaring what the law is using the traditional tools of interpretation, rather than pronouncing the law as they might wish it to be in light of their own political views, always with an eye on the outcome, and engaged perhaps in some Benthamite calculation of pleasures and pains along the way. Though the critics are loud and the temptations to join them may be many, mark me down too as a believer that the traditional account of the judicial role Justice Scalia defended will endure."
Posts
