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.

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

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