One sentence in the Associated Press story about the Monday swearing in of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court makes it clear he was the right choice for the position.
Gorsuch, 49, is known as an “originalist” or a “strict constructionist.” According to the AP, that means he interprets the Constitution “according to the meaning understood by those who drafted it.”
Look at it this way: Assume that you drafted a will, say, 20 years ago. After you pass on to your reward in, perhaps, another 20 years, someone contests your will.
Why, the objector tells a judge, what you and your attorney wrote in plain English should be disregarded, even if nothing material has changed about your estate. You could not possibly have anticipated that your old jalopy would become a valuable collector’s item. So, instead of it going to the person specified in your will, it ought to be donated to a museum.
It is difficult to imagine any judge would agree. What you wrote in the will stands, the courts would rule.
Many liberal judges do not view the Constitution that way. They think they should be empowered to alter it to accomplish ends they — but perhaps not the nation’s founders — believe are worthwhile.
The Constitution can be amended, by Congress and state legislatures. That guarantees we the people, not a majority of the nine high court justices, make substantive changes. Gorsuch’s agreement with that concept ensures he will serve the people, not his own ideology.