Neil Gorsuch: Supreme Court Nomination

Born on August 29, 1967 in Denver, Colorado, Neil Gorsuch was the oldest child of his mother, Anne Gorsuch. He went on to study at multiple top universities, including Columbia University, Harvard University, and the University of Oxford. Gorsuch first began as a clerk for the Judge David Sentelle of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He then continued to serve as a clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy and retired Justice Byron White. After, in July 2006, Gorsuch was unanimously affirmed for a position on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. In that same year, he also wrote and published his book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Finally, he was selected as a nominee as a US Supreme Court Justice by President Donald Trump in January and February 2017.

I support the nomination of Neil Gorsuch for multiple reasons.


Gorsuch is an originalist.

This is probably the most important factor when deciding whether he should get a spot on the Supreme Court of the United States. When contemplating a decision such as this, a question of whether or not the nominee will bring justice must be asked. Lady Justice holds a scale in her left hand and a sword in her right, with a blindfold covering her eyes. The scale symbolizes a just judicial process and that both sides of the case will be taken under consideration. The blindfold represents impartiality. The decision of the case will not be made with consideration to wealth, race, or any other status a person may hold that could potentially be seen above others. And finally, the sword signifies the power and strength of justice and that justice can also exemplify finality. Lady Justice should represent all the justices on the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, this is not so.

The current Supreme Court justices are extremely left-leaning and unbalanced. More so now than ever especially with originalist Justice Antonin Scalia gone. This is exactly the reason Gorsuch would be the perfect successor for Scalia. We see multiple similarities between the two. Scalia was widely known for his originalist perspective on things — meaning he reasonably attempted to interpret the Constitution the way it was understood by our Founding Fathers when it was written, something we also have seen through Gorsuch in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is necessary that we replace the previous originalist justice with another one, to maintain balance between the justices on the Court. There’s no better person for the spot than Gorsuch. We need a textualist to properly interpret the Constitution the way it was meant to be seen. Gorsuch sees the Constitution how it is and how it’s supposed to be, rather than change its meaning and purpose, which is what the Democrats are trying to do so that the Constitution is distorted to their belief system.

“Ours is the job of interpreting the Constitution. And that document isn’t some inkblot on which litigants may project their hopes and dreams.”


  • Neil Gorsuch



Gorsuch is highly intelligent, unbiased, and a strong believer in the Constitution.

It’s no secret that Gorsuch is beyond smart. Attending Columbia University, graduating Phi Beta Kappa, “the nation’s oldest academic honor society”, and earning a J. D. (Juris Doctor) from Harvard, his intelligence cannot be questioned. Not only that, he also received a Ph.D in law at Oxford University. There’s no doubt that his intellect is qualified for the Supreme Court.

Democrat, California Senator Dianne Feinstein met with Gorsuch and said the following day, “He’s a very caring person and he’s obviously legally very smart.”

She also said after, “I think we are dealing with someone who is impressive, so we’ll see.”

Gorsuch received the Edward J. Randolph Award for phenomenal service to the Department of Justice. This award was named after the first Attorney General and is the highest award for public service and leadership. Also, for superb public service in the field of law, he earned the Harry S. Truman Foundation’s Stevens Award, which is given to a Truman Scholar who has made exceptional contributions to public service.  

Gorsuch also said that “if a judge does not sometimes find himself voting or ruling against his own personal beliefs about politics or morality, that is a sure sign that he is failing to do justice according to law.”

Gorsuch wrote last year: “Often judges judge best when they judge least.” He said, “When judges defer to the executive about the law’s meaning, they are not fulfilling their duty to interpret the law.”

Judge Gorsuch claimed that a “problem for the judiciary” and “a problem for the people whose liberties may now be impaired” by “an avowedly politicized administrative agent seeking to pursue whatever policy whim may rule the day.”

Gorsuch explains that some of the judges are allowing their political beliefs erode the constitutional rights of citizens.

Denver’s attorney David Lane said, “He is a very, very smart man. His leanings are very conservative, but he’s qualified to be on the Supreme Court.”

He continued, “I don’t know that Judge Gorsuch has a political agenda and he is sincere and honest and believes what he writes.”


Gorsuch is a good writer.

This is especially important as a Supreme Court justice. A good judge must know how to properly portray his or her opinion. When writing an opinion, you must be a good writer to write a good opinion, regardless of whether people agree with it. Gorsuch meets these requirements perfectly.

In 2006, Gorsuch published a book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, expressing his opposition on assisted suicide. It’s clear that the topic was heavily researched for his book and this can also be said for the way he writes his opinions.

“All human beings are intrinsically valuable, and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”


  • Neil Gorsuch, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia



Through his published book, we can also infer his position on topics such as abortion. His strong stance on the “right to life” allows us to presume his understanding of abortion.


In Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius, the Greens, a family that owned a store called “Hobby Lobby,” filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services. The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, had requirements to do with contraceptions that went against the religious beliefs of the Greens. They refused to pay for contraceptions that aborted fertilized eggs, but were compliant to pay for contraceptions that abort implanted eggs. The insurance subjected the family to fines, so they ordered a preliminary injunction to stop the fines, but the district courts denied their request. As a result, they appealed.

In his opinion on the case Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius, 2013, Gorsuch expressed his strong belief in the right to religious freedom in the First Amendment and voted in favor of the Greens.


In the case United States v. Carloss, the police entered private property with “no trespassing” signs and knocked on his door to perform a search. While Carloss eventually, let the agents in, he received a criminal conviction. Carloss appealed, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights to “unreasonable searches and seizures” were violated. The government said that there was implied consent — “curtilage” — to search the area and two of three judges on the Tenth Circuit agreed.

Gorsuch however, dissented and argued that there was no implied consent involved on a remote and private property such as Carloss’s where there was no tresspassing signs put up. But he added that a search could have been justified under an emergency or if they had a warrant.


In Yellowbear v. Lampert, a Wyoming prisoner serving for the murder of his daughter named Andrew Yellowbear was denied permission to use the sweat lodge for his Native American religious purposes, resulting in him suing his prison. The prison claimed that the transportation was too expensive, successfully removing Yellowbear’s argument. This led to him appealing to the Tenth Circuit, who unanimously agreed with Yellowbear.

In this opinion, Gorsuch wrote that Yellowbear effectively proved that the use of the sweat lodge was, indeed, a part of his Native American culture, and the prison’s refusal to let him use the lodge was a violation of Yellowbear’s First Amendment.

[The First Amendment] “doesn’t just apply to protect popular religious beliefs: it does perhaps its most important work in protecting unpopular religious beliefs, vindicating this nation’s long-held aspiration to serve as a refuge of religious tolerance.”


  • Neil Gorsuch, Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *