A Republic, If You Can Keep It - Neil Gorsuch review

A Republic, If You Can Keep It by Neil Gorsuch

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


As an anthology of the Supreme Court justice’s speeches and rulings, if you want to get inside the head of one of the SCOTUS nine, this is a great way to go.

Gorsuch recognizes the great blessing we have in our nation, in the rule of law. He capably shows the layman why this is and how it works in the legal profession. Defending originalism (the original meaning in historical context should inform our reading of the law) and textualism (go by what the grammar actually says, not by an policy outcome/ruling that you want), I cheered throughout at the spirit of Antonin Scalia that shone out.

Humorous personal anecdotes aside, it was a bit of a slog through the specific rulings. More an education than a conservative anthem, I had to work to finish it.

One of Gorsuch’s main points is that judges ought not be politicized. It isn’t as simple as 5 conservative and 4 liberal justices. Reading and ruling on the law is seldom a political exercise, and shouldn’t be. We assume that real political consequences from legal decisions must mean the rulings were politically motivated, and they aren’t, or shouldn’t be. While I take his point, and grow frustrated with political commentators who treat the court like it’s another representative body with a left or right majority, what Gorsuch misses is that one’s understanding of virtue, ethics and law must be informed by the queen of the sciences, theology. Your view of God and how you know the truth will drastically shape your view of the law. Gorsuch either doesn’t want to talk about that, to keep a broader audience (I hope), or he consciously denies the connection (more worrisome).

I was almost done with the book when SCOTUS’ Bostock ruling of June 2020 came out, in which Gorsuch wrote the ruling, re-defining the prohibition of sex discrimination to include trans-gender individuals. The author went against much of the good he wrote in this book. He did the very thing he argued against: writing and redefining law for a desired outcome, instead of modestly applying what is there, regardless where it leads.

It seems solid judges are susceptible to liberal influence when they are seated on the court. It has happened several times before. The real virtues of collegiality and being open to consider opposing views, are often distorted into compromise of principle. This leads to grave harm and injustice done – to millions of unborn aborted babies with Roe, to the institution of marriage with Obergefell, and now to all of us who must legally deny the obvious natural gender God has given every person. Very sad.



View all my reviews