Trish's Reviews > Gorsuch: The Judge Who Speaks for Himself

Sorry to say, this book is hagiography and does not give a rounded picture of Judge Gorsuch. When one is reduced to praising a subject’s school (“it is the finest, most famous, best-regarded,” yada yada) rather than the subject’s own talents, perhaps those fabled skills aren’t worth talking about.

But this book is odd in another way. The author apparently did not interview Gorsuch for this book. He talks generally about the work of federal law clerks, and speaks to people who knew Gorsuch growing up, at school, at work, etc. but never spoke with the man. Those interviewed liked him. I’d be surprised if anyone with connections to a SCOTUS nominee went on the record dissing that nominee. Such figures cast long shadows.

And finally, Greenya ghost-wrote Gorsuch’s mother’s apologia when she was dismissed as head of the EPA under Reagan. What this book does is to gather together some of what has been written to date in other sources to present a picture of a man who is “very good at sounding reasonable, but [who takes] really right-wing positions,” said Columbia University fellow student Jordan Kushner of Minneapolis.

Greenya takes some time to introduce Gorsuch’s grandfather and parents and their work. All were lawyers—can you imagine dinnertime conversation? Greenya describes how Gorsuch’s mother was chosen to run the EPA under Reagan, agreeing to defang it. She was expendable to the greater goals of the White House, and one can’t help but wonder if she was chosen for just that expendable quality. (Sexism raises its ugly head everywhere then, though she’d probably deny it.)

The analysis in this book is sparse between extended quotes from other sources and pointed towards a thesis: that Gorsuch is the best doggone judge the world has seen, and full of righteousness. It is not very effective. Even if one uses Gorsuch’s own writings from cases he has adjudicated, pulling out a paragraph or two is unlikely to shed enough light into his psyche.

Answering the charge from dissenters of this thesis that Gorsuch favors large corporations over individual citizens. Greenya writes anecdotes about a person who tepidly recounts Gorsuch doing something empathic and arguing against extortionate charges—not really the evidentiary defense Greenya gives for Gorsuch arguing for the rights of corporations over individual’s rights.

Regarding Roe v Wade, Gorsuch wouldn’t answer when asked about this in confirmation except to say that he cares “deeply about the law and an independent judiciary and following the rules of the law.” Cold comfort, since interpretation of the law is what he is being called to do, it not being clear except that it is meant to make the life of citizens better. Gorsuch living in a house full of women should pause and consider what they would do for themselves, had they the opportunity.

Look, the author says Gorsuch from a youth was straight as an arrow, and good at debating: he apparently liked hearing the sound of his own voice and argued angles and positions others hadn’t, wouldn’t. Choosing a non-mainstream position and arguing it well doesn’t mean one is brilliant. It means one is canny, distinguishing oneself by being different. Being different is exactly what we don’t want in our judges. We want judges who can do for us what we cannot do in our great numbers—speak for us with seriousness and gravitas.

Gorsuch has too much ego for my taste. I would have steered clear of someone so clearly in love with himself. He appears to me to have forgotten he is a servant of the people, but also a leader. If he does neither, is he a good fit for SCOTUS?

Greenya tells us Stanford law professor Deborah L. Rhode, on the occasion of Gorsuch addressing the Fund for American Studies, a conservative group, six months or so after his confirmation intimated that Gorsuch speeches raise questions of independence, and that Gorsuch may be “ethically tone-deaf.” This is something we will have to watch in years to come. Perhaps the people still have a say in this after all.