Neil McGill Gorsuch

TOP HITS
RADICAL RIGHT WING JURISPRUDENCE
Gorsuch has written and made legal decisions that show
Gorsuch opposes what he calls “judicial activism,” claiming that “liberals” were “addicted” to relying on the courts to
debate social policy. Gorsuch argued that a reliance on judges to establish civil rights was “bad for the country.”
Gorsuch supported an extreme “non-delegation” doctrine that required that only legislators, not federal agencies, could
make policy decisions. Critics noted that even the conservative former Justice Scalia rejected this doctrine.
Gorsuch is a Textualist and an Originalist who believes judges should use “text, structure and history” to understand what
the law is, “not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve
society best.”
Gorsuch opposed the “Chevron Doctrine,” a legal principle giving power to government agencies when a law is
considered ambiguous. Proponents of the Chevron Doctrine argue that it protects workers’ rights.
Claimed The Courts Should Not Be Used To Fight For Civil Rights
GORSUCH ARGUED THAT THE COURST SHOULD NOT BE USED TO LITIGATE
A “SOCIAL AGENDA”
Gorsuch: “American Liberals Have Become Addicted To The Courtroom, Relying On Judges And Lawyers Rather
Than Elected Leaders And The Ballot Box, As The Primary Means Of Effecting Their Social Agenda.” According to
a column by Neil Gorsuch in National Review, “There’s no doubt that constitutional lawsuits have secured critical civil-right
victories, with the desegregation cases culminating in Brown v. Board of Education topping the list. But rather than use the
judiciary for extraordinary cases, von Drehle recognizes that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying
on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on
everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education. [National Review,
2/7/05]
Gorsuch: “American Liberals Have Become Addicted To The Courtroom, Relying On Judges And Lawyers Rather
Than Elected Leaders And The Ballot Box, As The Primary Means Of Effecting Their Social Agenda.” According to
the Denver Post, “Gorsuch’s published works show conservative leanings. In a 2005 article in the National Review, Gorsuch
argued that ‘American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected
leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda.’” [Denver Post, 7/21/06]
Gorsuch: Legislators “May Appeal To Their Own Moral Convictions And To Claims About Social Utility To
Reshape The Law As They Think It Should Be In The Future” But “Judges Should Do None Of These Things In A
Democratic Society.” According to Washington Post, “Gorsuch would like to curb the deference that courts give to federal
agencies and is most noted for a strong defense of religious exemptions in cases brought by private companies and religious
nonprofit groups objecting to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Gorsuch said in a speech last spring that
as a judge he had tried to follow Scalia’s path. ‘The great project of Justice Scalia’s career was to remind us of the differences
between judges and legislators,’ Gorsuch told an audience at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland.
Legislators ‘may appeal to their own moral convictions and to claims about social utility to reshape the law as they think it
should be in the future,’ Gorsuch said. But ‘judges should do none of these things in a democratic society.’ Instead, they
should use ‘text, structure and history’ to understand what the law is, ‘not to decide cases based on their own moral
convictions or the pol-icy consequences they believe might serve society best.’” [Washington Post, 1/29/17]
5