A Return to Constitutionalism

Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals is by virtually every account a stellar jurist. His writings are now being mined, by supporters and opponents alike, for evidence of his commitment to judicial restraint and the separation of powers.

That evidence is not hard to find. In an address delivered on April 27, 2016, Gorsuch spoke of “the great project of Justice Scalia’s career,” namely to expound “the differences between judges and legislators.” It was ever Scalia’s intention to remind us, said Gorsuch, that

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 that judges should do none of these things in a democratic society. That judges should instead strive (if humanly and so imperfectly) to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be.

Saner words were never spoken. We should take heart in the man and thinker that Gorsuch is. His pedigree is impeccable; it is that of an elite, and yet he has taken a path that is strikingly different from that of his similarly pedigreed contemporaries.

Few have noted that he is a student of John Finnis of Oxford, where he took a doctorate in philosophy. Gorsuch’s book, The Future of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, published by Princeton University Press in 2006, provides ample evidence that Finnis’ new natural law school of thought took root. The book is premised on the immutable dignity of human life and delves into the private, lethal acts that constitute euthanasia—acts that are in no way reconcilable with a constitutional government whose mandate is protecting its citizens from violence. He shows how the licensing of private killing slowly undermines the very social contract on which constitutional authority rests. All lives matter—and for saying so, at erudite length, the Rocky Mountain jurist will no doubt face an opposition that is all the more vehement.

Another lightning rod will be his principled opposition to the administrative state doctrine known as Chevron deference. Gorsuch has stated clearly that the problem with the Chevron doctrine—under which courts must defer to interpretations of statutes from the very agencies that enforce those statutes, unless such interpretations are unreasonable—is that just about everything, in practice, is deemed reasonable.

Here’s Gorsuch on deference to agencies:

Executive bureaucracies . . swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design.

Preach it, brother. What is encouraging is that he has recognized the essential problem with Chevron deference, which is not necessarily the substance of the regulations being judicially rubber-stamped but the problem of their authority. Critics of Gorsuch who characterize the maintenance of Chevron as an essential of judicial restraint misapprehend the purpose of restraint: not to curb courts, as if that were an end in itself, but to facilitate representative self-government. Chevron deference undermines the authority of statute as expressed by the people’s representatives in favor of the will of agencies, which are shielded from deliberative politics.

In the same opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch (2016), in noting that there was “an elephant in the room” and that “maybe the time has come to face the behemoth,” Gorsuch underscored what many are thinking about the regulatory state, even those unwilling to eliminate the judicial doctrines and conventions that give license and latitude to its rule-mongering. Americans may never go full Philip Hamburger on the administrative state, but we can’t keep treating it as obsequiously as we do at present.

Against the excesses of President Obama, and what portend to be the same from President Trump, Gorsuch may count more than Justice Thomas on his side in seeking to undo these near-sacred administrative state doctrines. Gorsuch’s position on Chevron and his jurisprudence more broadly suggest a willingness, in the manner of Sir Edward Coke, to declare that the executive must be subject to the law. This in a political milieu that emphasizes action over deliberation and forward motion over balance, and in which constitutionalism is increasingly situational.

What will be no surprise to Gorsuch is the degree to which problems in our constitutionalism show up in the nominating process for the U.S. Supreme Court. His is likely to be an arduous ordeal. The smart money is on his confirmation, but we would be foolish to discount uncertainty in outcome given the battle lines as we knew them, and the additional need to factor in a Trump political team that may well lurch into action like some sort of hell-bent cavalry. So hang on for a rough ride.

This only highlights the truth that the Supreme Court should not function as a sitting constitutional convention, making every nomination into an event capable of reshaping our politics. As with presidential elections these days, the excessive power changing hands swells the stakes of each and every confirmation battle, inflating it to world-historical terms and making participants lose sight of the fact that there will be a next time (which fact used to at least somewhat temper their actions).

Independent branches of government, separated and set against one another on grounds of institutional pride and jealousy, is at the core of our constitutionalism. Politics is to be managed by representation, compromise, and the holding of certain interests in abeyance to achieve others more near at hand. One lives to fight another day, even when one’s party is in the minority. Every republic must have clashes to decide what defines it. The Supreme Court can provide no such space in which self government can occur. When acting as the arbiter of such conflicts, the Court becomes instrumentalized in the politics of friend versus enemy, to cite the concept of the infamous German legal theorist Carl Schmitt, who also served as a jurist in the Nazi government. Schmitt said that liberal parliamentary systems no longer worked in modern democratic societies because their demands overwhelmed the limited capacities of representative government. Only an executive-led government could direct such a complex and fast-moving political order.

But Schmitt’s call for executive-led government — because liberalism can’t contemplate the contents of politics, which he said is a divisive and war-like pursuit of zero-sum opposition — is also a fault of judicial led government and applies to those rushing to get before the Court and be blessed by five votes. Might we be forgiven after reading the Court’s Obergefell opinion for thinking that those in the majority understood this precisely?

Reclaiming republicanism is a tall order. Gorsuch is an impeccable nominee, but he can’t save us, not on his own. But maybe he has some insights for us. In 2005, our potential new member of the Court wrote the following:

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.

Might we follow his lead and reinvigorate representative government and not the courtroom?

Richard Reinsch

Richard Reinsch is the editor of Law and Liberty.

About the Author

Greg Weiner

Greg Weiner is a contributing editor of Law and Liberty.

About the Author

Recent Popular Posts

Related Posts

Comments

  1. nobody.really says

    In 2005, our potential new member of the Court wrote the following:

    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.

    Might we follow his lead and reinvigorate representative government and not the courtroom?

    So you’re predicting he’ll restore campaign finance laws and gun controls, out of deference to representative government? And when the Trump people asked him to commit to how he would vote on Trump’s litmus test issues, he told them to take a hike because doing so would impair his capacities as a member of an independent branch of government?

    Or are you predicting that he’s a political hack like the rest, happy to overturn legislation that doesn’t serve his politics, and happy to give whatever assurances the Trump people required?

    • gabe says

      OMG, nobody!

      If that be humor, it failed miserably!

      As one example: ” “Might we follow his lead and reinvigorate representative government and not the courtroom?” So you’re predicting he’ll restore campaign finance laws and gun controls, out of deference to representative government?”

      Could it be that these two *sacraments* of the Left are simply not within the delegated powers of the Republic?

      Clearly, you are smart enough to recognize the manner in which Gorsuch is intended (by Reinsch and Weiner) to reinvigorate representative government – by respecting the limited role of the judiciary, the other branches (theoretically) will return to their own roles – yet, in pursuit of your ongoing narrative, you choose to deny such knowledge, or at least feign ignorance of it.

      Does it ever stop – this willful ignorance and onslaught of *polished* phrases / questions all designed to obfuscate?

      I think in response to Rappaport’s’ opening question in the above essay: “Sometimes I think following politics is just crazy. It is as if one is being manipulated by someone for their own purposes, except I’m not quite sure who that person is”. – See more at: http://www.libertylawsite.org/2017/02/02/questions-about-obamas-syrian-refugee-policy/#sthash.QSXjecwK.dpuf

      We now have an answer: It is nobody.really who seeks to confuse, agitate and diminish the citizens capacity to understand political realities.

      Try another approach – this was a fine essay by Reinsch and Weiner and WILL be readily comprehended by any reader without a specific narrative to defend.

    • Nancy D. says

      It is important to note that there are certain self-evident truths that do not depend on location, or opinion; for example, P cannot in essence be not P, every son or daughter of a human person can only in essence be, a human person, and only a man and woman can exist in relationship as husband and wife, and thus, in essence, be married to each other.

      It is important to note that due process is binding in both State and Federal Law, thus, when Roe v. Wade is overturned, due to the fact that the failure to recognized the personhood of the son or daughter residing in their mother’s womb, is an error in both substantive and procedural due process, the question of personhood will not then return to the States or the people.

      Speciation occurs at the moment of conception, thus every son or daughter of a human person, can only be, in essence, a human person. Being, in essence, a son or daughter of a human person, does not depend on location, or whether one is residing inside or outside of their mother’s womb.

      Amendment XIV

      Section 1.

      All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18

      “He quoted Blackstone in 1765 and he observed in his commentaries that life, “this right is inherent by nature in every individual and exists even before the child is born.”

      “Harry A. Blackmun
      Well, I think– I’m just wondering if there’s a basic consistency there and let me go back to something else that you said.

      Is it not true or is it true that the medical profession itself is not in agreement as to when life begins?

      Robert C. Flowers
      I think that’s true, sir.”

  2. Scott Amorian says

    He’ll go through easily. The Dems will put on a good cabaret to keep up their financial support but after the fat lady sings they will approve him.

  3. Odyss says

    I am encouraged that we seem to be curtailing the regulatory state and this was a fine article on the nominee. I might also point out that our president is also working hard to kill the regulatory state, but what I was very encouraged about was article 4 of his first EO where he encouraged the federal bureaucrats to work with and encourage the STATES to set up a national free market for health insurance. A president who promotes federalism, who’d a thunk it!

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>