Merrick Garland’s long, strung out and painful nomination process came to an end on Jan. 3 of this year after the Republican-controlled Senate’s insistence on not holding hearings for President Obama’s nominee.
The responsibility to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat fell into the lap of President Donald Trump, and last week he announced his nominee: Neil Gorsuch. Neil Gorsuch hails from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and has been a law clerk for current Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. He holds degrees from Columbia University, Harvard University and Oxford University.
His resume is long and accomplished, yet Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer has hinted at a long confirmation battle for Neil Gorsuch to get the necessary 60 senate votes for him to join the ranks of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel Alito. This is in part a retaliation over the controversial tactics used by Senate Republicans last year, but also because some of his rulings on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have been controversial and Democratic leaders have worried that a Trump nominee may be unpredictable.
This is because Gorsuch has been described as being out of the mainstream of contemporary legal thought. He has been described as a “strict constitutionalist” and “originalist”, which encompasses the idea that the Constitution should be read and interpreted by the original meaning of the founding fathers as closely as possible. This falls within the same vein as the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
The ideology of originalism promotes stability in the interpretation of constitutional law by removing a judge’s ability to inject their opinion into a case because they are bound to the constraints of the founding father’s original meaning behind the constitution. Conversely, in the school of thought where the constitution is viewed as a “living document”, a judge is given the immense responsibility of making decisions that they see best fit our country’s current climate and needs.
However, the Supreme Court seems to have a more ideological divide that is stronger and more profound than how we should interpret the Constitution. An ideological line exists that is political, and not simply intellectual. Supreme Court justices that were appointed by Democratic presidents side together on important cases while justices appointed by Republican presidents stick together.
Neil Gorsuch is an “Originalist,” but he is also a Conservative. His decisions on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reflected a conservative world view where he made decisions that upheld defunding Planned Parenthood, defending religious freedom in Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius, and protecting police officers over use of force.  A majority of his decisions and ideas are in line with President Donald Trump and the Republican Party. He is seen as someone who will be reliable to their executive and legislative agendas.
When he was a student at Columbia University, however, he wrote opinion pieces showing a commitment to free speech, and to having a rich marketplace of thoughts and ideas. He believed that the university should limit its regulation and interaction with student affairs so that an intellectually rigorous and diverse community could blossom.
In this respect, Neil Gorsuch can become a champion and protector of civil liberties and rights on the Supreme Court, which will help and benefit all people if it is implemented in a thoughtful and concise way. These civil liberties should be implemented on a case by case basis, and not in a one size fits all approach to business and universities which have vast differences.
Additionally, commentators on both ends of the political spectrum have lauded his commitment to the rule of law, and how he is someone who is willing to rule against the Republican party when their actions have overreached their constitutional bounds. His temperament is balanced and thoughtful, and he is someone who can be a counterweight to the chaotic politics in legislative and executive branches.
In terms of the future for the Supreme Court and how their judicial decisions will affect the trajectory of the United States, people should not fret a radical change in the court’s balance. He is a conservative originalist who is replacing another conservative originalist, and on major cases where the court uses a strict level of scrutiny, one would expect a similar divide on the issues with Justice Kennedy or Chief Justice Roberts possibly swinging over to the more liberal wing of the court.
With all aspects of Neil Gorsuch taken account for, he should be confirmed as our nation’s next Supreme Court Justice. Aside from his politics, his character reflects one of a justice who is composed, and he will strengthen the Supreme Court’s duty of being a balance to the other branches of the government.