Trump Nominates Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court

During the campaign, Trump promised to undo Roe v. Wade.

David Zalubowski/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The silver fox wins. Supreme Court watchers had been speculating for days that President Donald Trump would nominate a justice who most looks like he could play one on TV. Of all the conservative candidates on Trump’s short list, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch most fit that bill.

The administration rolled out the president’s Supreme Court pick Tuesday evening with dramatic flair more appropriate for a reality TV series. Trump summoned his two top picks, Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman, who serves alongside Trump’s sister on the 3rd Circuit of Appeals, to heighten the suspense. And he unveiled his selection during a prime-time Oval Office address.

“The qualifications of Judge Gorsuch are beyond dispute,” he declared in making the announcement, noting that Gorsuch had been confirmed unanimously to his current seat. “That’s unanimous—can you believe that? Nowadays with what’s going on? Does that happen anymore?”

After Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, Senate Republicans refused to allow President Barack Obama to fill his seat on the high court—Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, didn’t even receive a hearing. That gamble appears to have paid off. Gorsuch is seen by many on the right as a fitting heir to Scalia. Appointed to the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush in 2006, Gorsuch—like Scaliais a so-called “textualist,” meaning he looks only to the words on the page, and not to legislative history when looking at the law. He’s expected to hew to Scalia’s approach of interpreting the law through the lens of the Founders’ original intent. Unlike Hardiman, whose blue-collar background and years driving a taxi gave him a compelling and unusual personal story for a potential Supreme Court justice, Gorsuch has an Ivy League background. He was in Obama’s class at Harvard Law School, studied philosophy at Oxford, and served in the Bush Justice Department. (In his announcement, Trump noted that “education is very, very important to me.”)

Now Gorsuch could serve alongside Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom he once clerked. But Gorsuch’s views on the law—and especially the power of the regulatory state—may have been shaped as much by his mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, who was the first woman to head the Environmental Protection Agency. During her brief tenure as President Ronald Reagan’s EPA administrator, Burford waged war on environmental regulations, including trying to roll back limits on lead in gasoline. She became the first agency head in American history to be held in contempt of Congress for withholding documents from the House, which was investigating mismanagement of a Superfund cleanup project. Burford had previously served in the Colorado House of Representatives, where she was a member of the “House Crazies,” a group of legislators who might have been considered the Tea Party Caucus of their day.

As a federal appellate judge, Neil Gorsuch won conservative fans with his rulings in cases involving Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor, in which he rejected the Obama administration’s attempt to force both entities to provide contraception coverage in their health insurance plans. He also recently dissented in a decision by his court to deny the rehearing of an appeal from the state of Utah, which had tried to defund Planned Parenthood but was blocked by the appellate court. 

Despite Gorsuch’s extremely conservative record on the bench, anti-abortion purists had been lobbying against his nomination because they considered him insufficiently pro-life. But other abortion foes, such as Ethics and Public Policy Center President Ed Whelan, have countered that Gorsuch is clearly on record as pro-life. He wrote a book on assisted suicide, and in that book he made clear that he didn’t see a constitutional rationale for placing the value of a mother’s life over that of her unborn child—a clear enough signal about his views on Roe v. Wade, the controversial Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

With Gorsuch’s nomination, Trump seems to have fulfilled one of his primary campaign promises of appointing a pro-life justice to fill Scalia’s seat. As he said before announcing his pick, “Millions of voters said this was the single most important issue to them when they voted for president for me. I am a man of my word.”

Whether Gorsuch will live up to Trump’s promise to overturn Roe v. Wade “automatically” remains to be seen. In 2005, Gorsuch wrote an essay for National Review decrying the increasing politicization of the judiciary, which, he wrote, “undermines the only real asset it has—its independence.” Gorsuch added, “Judges come to be seen as politicians and their confirmations become just another avenue of political warfare.” Gorsuch may prove to have an independent streak to match the justice he’ll be replacing (or simply a fondness for opining in conservative news outlets like his future colleague Samuel Alito). Regardless, at 49, he will be the youngest justice on the court since the first President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, who was 42 at the time. Actuarial tables suggest Gorsuch will have many, many years on the court to make good on Trump’s pledge.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate