Ours is the job of interpreting the Constitution. And that document isn’t some inkblot on which litigants may project their hopes and dreams for a new and perfected tort law, but
a carefully drafted text judges are charged with applying according to its original public meaning.
Judge Neil Gorsuch, concurring opinion, STEPHAN CORDOVA, Plaintiff – Appellant v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, et al, Defendants-Appellees
President Trump hit a homerun with his choice of Neil Gorsuch, currently an appellate judge on the US Tenth Circuit. Universally recognized as brilliant, he writes in a clear and concise manner that makes his decisions understandable by laymen who have not wasted three years of their life in law school. Currently 49 years old, when he was appointed by President Bush to the 10th Circuit he was approved by the Senate unanimously.
He is an originalist who believes that the text of the Constitution must be interpreted as the words were commonly understood at the time the portions of the Constitution were adopted. He is noted as a friend of religious liberty and, in his extra-judicial writings, as a defender of innocent human life. The quote above and the quote below indicate that he understands the role that our courts should play in our Republic:
“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,” he wrote. “This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary.”