OPINION:
To hear others speak of 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge and Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, it is as if the phrase “scholar and gentleman” were coined to describe him. For some, the expression might be a grudging way of expressing personal respect and admiration for a man whose judicial philosophy they do not share and whose seat on the court they would rather have been filled by a Democratic president. Yet the phrase fits the man precisely. Judge Gorsuch is a careful scholar of extraordinary ability. And he is a gentleman, generous toward others and well-liked by those who know him. His service on the court would model the impartiality and civility that we need in this fractious and agenda-driven age.
Confirmation hearings that began last week to assess Judge Gorsuch’s fitness to serve on the Supreme Court gave scrutiny to his scholarship. Public criticism has focused particularly on Judge Gorsuch’s doctoral dissertation supervisor at Oxford, the philosopher John Finnis. Mr. Finnis is an expert on natural law theory, the idea that legal and moral norms can be grounded in objective principles. Judge Gorsuch’s own scholarship shows that he shares Mr. Finnis’ interest in natural law.
The suggestion that this shared interest makes both men rigidly moralistic or narrow-minded misses the mark. Both men teach by example to consider each perspective on its own terms and to search for truths and insights wherever they may be found.
Lost in the speculation about Mr. Finnis’ influence on Judge Gorsuch is that their interests are not confined to natural law theory. Their scholarship reflects critical engagement with a variety of perspectives. Those who genuinely want to know what sort of man Neil Gorsuch is and what sort of Supreme Court hustice he is likely to be will find in his scholarship a disposition to follow reason wherever it leads, and a charity toward disputants on all sides of a question.
Judge Gorsuch does not knock over straw men. He reads each argument in the best possible light. For example, in his book, “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” written at Oxford and published by Princeton University Press, Judge Gorsuch faithfully restates and even enhances the arguments of liberal philosophers in favor of personal freedom and autonomy. His discussion leads the reader to see what is attractive and important about personal autonomy, even as he identifies clearly the limitations of arguments for personal freedom. He gives each side its due.
Nor is he patronizing toward any. He spares no argument the most searching criticisms, whether that argument leads to a conclusion that one might expect to be endorsed by the left, the right, or neither. For example, in his book Judge Gorsuch considers and rejects what he finds to be “manipulable” and inadequate arguments against legalizing assisted suicide. This is not what one would expect from a cheerleader for conservative ideology.
Reading Judge Gorsuch’s scholarship on end-of-life ethics, assisted suicide laws and the jurisprudence of intention, one sees that all possible reasons for accepting or rejecting an argument are on the table. Yet only reasons are on the table. His scholarship is not encumbered by polemics or rhetorical tricks. It is characterized by clarity and analytical rigor.
The commitment of Neil Gorsuch-the-scholar to treat all sides with the same charitable but rigorous engagement is not an artificial persona. It is borne out of his character. As someone who has been privileged to discuss legal and moral philosophy with him, I can attest that Judge Gorsuch extends the same rigorous and charitable respect toward those from whom he stands to gain nothing, whose credentials pale in comparison with his own, who do not occupy positions of power and influence.
Neil Gorsuch the scholar and Neil Gorsuch the judge are both natural extensions of Neil Gorsuch the man. He is, in the classic sense of the term, magnanimous — great in mind and soul. We would all benefit from seeing this trait on display at our nation’s highest court.
• Adam J. MacLeod is associate professor at Faulkner University, Jones School of Law. He is the author of “Property and Practical Reason” (Cambridge University Press, 2015) and co-editor of “Foundations of Law” (Carolina Academic Press, 2017).
Please read our comment policy before commenting.