Et tu, Gorsuch?

Et tu, Gorsuch?  A little over three years into a lifetime appointment, and he's already speaking for Justice Ginsburg when it comes to matters of transsexualism and forgotten all about Justice Scalia's textualism.

No matter how hard we try, our "conservative" judges belly-flop into "strict constructionist" poseurs and weak-kneed judicial activists faster than Chief Justice Roberts can rewrite Obamacare into a tax.  I mean, you try to keep these "originalist" jurists on a philosophically sound path.  You teach them "right" from "wrong."  You instill in them a respect for the law and the importance of always telling the truth.  You can't be with them all the time, though.  You know they're being tempted by strange leftists to rule by emotion and always let the "ends justify the means," but you tell yourself, "we can count on a judge described by many as Justice Scalia's natural successor, right?"  Right?

Gorsuch portrayed himself as a textualist stalwart who understood the great societal costs of abdicating judicial restraint for willy-nilly lawmaking out of thin air.  He promised to serve as a sound, objective, and impartial justice for an out-of-control Judicial Branch that has replaced "the law" with "the decree."  All his friends said he was a man of principle.  Conservatives smiled with pride.  Those he was meant to serve gladly gave him their trust.  And then, bam!  Gorsuch's promises to apply the law as written failed even to outlive Justice Ginsburg.  

It turns out he's been living a double life, inhaling the toxic postmodern rhetoric in his private chambers while nobody was looking and scratching that lawless, self-centered, inexcusable deconstructionist itch this whole time.  So Gorsuch has come out of the closet, it seems, wearing nothing but his feelings and a smile.  He's a legislator now, not a judge, and like all American legislators, he plans to follow the fickle demands of the mob before making up his mind, and the law, as he goes.  Another "conservative" intellectual performs a self-lobotomy in order to think and sound like Earl Warren and William Brennan on a David Souter morphine pump.  For shame!

Gorsuch's Bostock opinion will live in infamy for accomplishing a double whammy of jurisprudential destruction: (1) it has opened the floodgates to an unrelenting tide of future litigation against churches and religious institutions of every kind (move over, "Bake the cake!," and say hello to "Men in dresses must teach catechism!"), and (2) it did so by claiming to adhere to Justice Scalia's textualist approach to the law while actually betraying it.  Bravo, Justice Gorsuch!  You managed to make an already quite vulnerable class of religious Americans even more vulnerable to the whims and outrageous follies of Marxist revolutionaries while stabbing your proclaimed intellectual mentor repeatedly in the back.  Rarely can such professional and personal betrayal be wrapped up so neatly in one fit of "because I said so" judicial overreach.  

"When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it's no contest[.] ... Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit."  The great Justice Scalia could have written these words, himself, as a rebuke to leftist higgledy-piggledy manipulation of the law.  Instead, Gorsuch steals the language from his mentor, thrashes it in a wood chipper, and reconstructs its meaning to argue that Congress wrote Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not to protect women from discrimination in the workplace, but rather to protect a small group of American transsexuals during a decade when "free love" hippies weren't exactly digging the whole gay scene.  Sixty years ago, "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" would have been as foreign to most people as the concepts of "assigned birth sex" and "sexual reassignment" surgery.  Still, Gorsuch stared deeply at the old text, and, with respectful adherence to Congress's intent and the plain meaning of the words before him, he rewrote the meaning of the statute in order to align with his personal beliefs, desires, and dreams.  Gorsuch has managed to distort Scalia's sober, textual analysis so completely that the liberals on the bench are all screaming, "See, we're all textualists now!"

When even our "originalist" judges are so hostile to the historical record and imaginative and fanciful with their assault on truth, is there any hope for ever achieving a Supreme Court that can constrain itself within the bounds of Article III without constantly stealing powers from the Legislative and Executive Branches far beyond its purview?  Of course not!  The priestly oligarchs rewriting language for everyone else have already dispensed with any distinction between "man" and "woman"; why would they quibble with the managerial nuances between "judge" and "legislator"?  All Gorsuch has done with Bostock is proven that, regardless of his pedigree and education, he still can't read.  

Shouldn't that end up being the only test we care about when selecting judges in the future?  There's nothing in the Constitution requiring that the justices have law degrees or even formal schooling.  The Court is charged with applying the law to cases and controversies within its jurisdiction and nothing more.  Its members need not be giants of jurisprudential philosophy, cerebral academics, or lawyers of any kind.  I'm convinced that the job of applying the law as written with self-restraint must be so difficult for anybody with a celebrated education that only ordinary people far away from the corrupting influences of the universities and the courts are capable of performing the rote constitutional duties of the Judicial Branch without meandering toward the intoxicating temptation of ruling like an unconstrained king.  

Read the statute.  Read the facts of the case.  Apply the statutory law to the facts of the case.  Repeat.  Somewhere between high school education and Ivy League pre-eminence, this task becomes too challenging and strenuous to perform.  The "best and brightest" can't be trusted to administer justice when they can't be bothered to understand the words before their eyes.  Perhaps the only way to save the Court from itself is to stop filling it with people who "know so much that isn't so."

If you experience technical problems, please write to