A Republic, If You Can Keep It

by Neil Gorsuch

NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER Justice Neil Gorsuch reflects on his journey to the Supreme Court, the role of the judge under our Constitution, and the vital responsibility of each American to keep our republic strong.

As Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention, he was reportedly asked what kind of government the founders would propose. He replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” In this book, Justice Neil Gorsuch shares personal reflections, speeches, and essays that focus on the remarkable gift the framers left us in the Constitution.

Justice Gorsuch draws on his thirty-year career as a lawyer, teacher, judge, and justice to explore essential aspects our Constitution, its separation of powers, and the liberties it is designed to protect. He discusses the role of the judge in our constitutional order, and why he believes that originalism and textualism are the surest guides to interpreting our nation’s founding documents and protecting our freedoms. He explains, too, the importance of affordable access to the courts in realizing the promise of equal justice under law—while highlighting some of the challenges we face on this front today.

Along the way, Justice Gorsuch reveals some of the events that have shaped his life and outlook, from his upbringing in Colorado to his Supreme Court confirmation process. And he emphasizes the pivotal roles of civic education, civil discourse, and mutual respect in maintaining a healthy republic.

A Republic, If You Can Keep It offers compelling insights into Justice Gorsuch’s faith in America and its founding documents, his thoughts on our Constitution’s design and the judge’s place within it, and his beliefs about the responsibility each of us shares to sustain our distinctive republic of, by, and for “We the People.”

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Law, History, Legal, Biography, Philosophy

Audible Audio

First published January 1, 2019

About the author

Neil McGill Gorsuch, D.Phil. (University of Oxford, 2004; J.D., Harvard University, 1991; B.A., Columbia University, 1988) is the 101st Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President Donald Trump to succeed Antonin Scalia and took the oath of office on April 10, 2017.

From 1995 to 2005, Gorsuch was in private practice with the law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel. Gorsuch was Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice from 2005 to his appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by President George W. Bush on May 10, 2006, to replace Judge David M. Ebel, who took senior status in 2006.

Gorsuch is a proponent of textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in interpreting the United States Constitution. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, he is an advocate of natural law jurisprudence. Gorsuch clerked for Judge David B. Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1991 to 1992 and U.S. Supreme Court Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy from 1993 to 1994. He is the first Supreme Court Justice to serve alongside another Justice for whom he once had clerked (Kennedy).

Reviews

[Jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

For quite a few years now, I have been attempting to read everything I can about the Supreme Court. When I saw this book by Gorsuch, I had to buy it.

The book is well written and is easy to read. The book is not exactly a memoir, but Gorsuch does tell about his life and how he was appointed to the Supreme Court. He came from a family of attorneys so it was no wonder he chose the law. Some chapters appear to be written for the book; some are speeches or papers he has written in the past. Primarily, Gorsuch attempts to tell about his views and how he looks at an issue. He also goes into depth attempting to explain originalism and textualism. I have a problem accepting this idea; therefore, I read extensively on the subject in my attempts to understand the pros and cons of the concept. Gorsuch does a good job trying to explain it so a layperson like me can understand.

I was impressed with one comment Gorsuch made and I quote “We must be able to talk to one another respectfully, debate and compromise, and stride to live together tolerantly.” I remember reading in one of Justice Anton Scalia’s books he said “I don’t attack the person; I debate the ideas”. Neil Gorsuch taught ethics at the University of Colorado and a lot of that subject is in the book. It is my impression of the book that Gorsuch is reaching out to attempt to explain how a conservative looks at the law. The book is well worth reading.

I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is eleven hours and fifty-two minutes. The author does a good job narrating the book.

[John Boyne · Rating 5 out of 5]

I saw this book at my local library and thought it would be good to get to know one of our newest Supreme Court Justices a little better and I got to say that I am glad I did! Neil Gorsuch provides excerpts from a wide variety of speeches, lectures and decisions that he has made over the years working at a judge and professor. Neil provides insights into the nature of the Constitution, the role of the judge in society, and the importance of originialism and textualism as the best method of interpreting the Constitution and the law. I found it to be such a relief to know that such a good man has been given such a tremendous opportunity to serve our nation and preserve our founding documents in such a way as to maintain library for the people of this nation. I find this book as a very important read before our upcoming national election to serve as a reminder as to what's important and why our votes can matter for generations to come. The 2016 election resulted in this great man reaching the highest court in the land. Remember that 2020 will be just as important!

[Alan Tomkins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Writing about the American legal system, Justice Gorsuch is humble, logical, fair-minded, knowledgeable, and scrupulously consistent in his analysis and reasoning. He very convincingly makes the case for diligently respecting and preserving our constitutionally mandated separation of powers in government, and why this is so vitally important for preserving our personal liberties. Likewise, his arguments in favor of originalism and textualism are eminently sound and persuasive.
Despite all these positive characteristics, I gave this book three stars because I found it rather dry and repetitive, which I suppose is a common pitfall when a book is mostly a collection of speeches and essays. It is an intelligent and earnest work, and should be considered a great reference book, but I did get easily bored and distracted while reading it. So there it is.

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

While I enjoyed listening to this book on audio (read by Justice Gorsuch), it perhaps made things a touch confusing to follow. This is part memoir, part textualist/originalist defense, and part collection on why the separation of powers is so important. (Illustrated by multiple cases, opinions, and speeches given by Justice Gorsuch in the past.) It also contains suggestions for how the legal profession could lower the cost of legal services and advice to law students. (This would make a great gift for a 1L headed to law school.)
The overall book therefore came across a tad scattered at times. However, I'm rounding up to 5 stars because Gorsuch writes with clear common sense and addresses many of the problems facing the legal field today. I particularly enjoyed the snapshots he provides of life at the Supreme Court. He strongly emphasizes the cordiality among colleagues at the Supreme Court so often overlooked or downplayed by the media.
Not a must read but certainly one worth returning to if you feel discouraged by the state of our judiciary.

[Todd · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just finished - everyone who is interested in or concerned about SCOTUS should read this book. Listening to Gorsuch explain his judicial philosophy with concrete examples is encouraging. If we had more like him, the court would cease to be the center of attention because it would stay in its lane, and force the other branches to do the same. Restoring the balance of powers would go a long way to insuring (restoring?) domestic tranquility and to securing the blessings of liberty.

"A good judge knows that flattery and scorn alike are fleeting and false guides"

From the quoted poem IF (found in entirety here: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem...--- or here https://www.poetryfoundation.org/play...

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too...
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,...
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same...
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,

[Rick Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Honestly seems like a great guy to have a beer and go fly fishing with. Some of his arguments are a bit out over their skis, but generally a well written easy read that shares his perspective.

[Jeanette · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a whole lot more personal memoir and general philosophy within USA discourse than I thought it would be. It's wordy, lawyer exact, and verbose eloquent prone at the same time. The photographs, especially within Colorado are 5 star. Most of the copy is 3.5 stars at least, but I can't round it up because it is in tone smooth but at the same time does not inclusively tie in with the title onus, IMHO.

Much of his opinion and mentoring or procedural articles in sequences at the end are excellent and at least 4 star.

The memoir aspects of how the Supreme Court operates in comradery and in legal degrees of every sort of interchange or not; those are all interesting and IMHO, ironic. Especially when you consider what the process has been like lately in the nomination and equivocations during the applications for this office.

His efforts to maintain a republic, in words and in acts passed, still seems light years away from the Founders' foundations, IMHO. As has the core of "Republic" being inversely redefined in multiple practical applications of law.

This will give you eons more about Neil Gorsuch as a person than as an acting Justice, IMHO. I wanted more of the latter. Although you get the textural nature of his evaluations and not party or issue onus solely cored. (Which IMHO is NOT a general Supreme Court Justice description now.) The biggest nugget I took out of it was his absolute bottom line of never attacking the person, but the issue itself. And every issue to degrees of exact context and subsequent outcomes.

Considering the current media, news of print and latest confirmations (not to speak of sports, celeb movie or tv worlds, elites of "coolness" etc.)- his gentleness and operating rules seem in combination a huge irony. And theoretically possible, but humanly- probably not.

[Patrick O'Hannigan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book after hearing Rush Limbaugh wax enthusiastically about it on air. Most of it is dense, not because it's unclear or badly written, but because Gorsuch writes with so much precision that many ideas are crammed into each paragraph.

Anyone curious about the role or challenges faced by judges in the American legal system should read this book. By the end of it, I found myself wishing that Neil Gorsuch was the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, rather than just one of his esteemed colleagues.

After COVID-19, in June of 2020, I still wish that. But non-lawyers interested in law (like me) and lawyers alike must be cautioned that nothing in this book hints that Neil Gorsuch -- while occupying the position once held by Antonin Scalia -- would attempt to expand legislative intent from 1964 or go on to write the majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County. Those actions are both disappointments, in my opinion.

[Papaphilly · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Republic, If You Can Keep It is an excellent read. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch writes this amazing read to both tell the reader of his judicial philosophies, but also his views of various subjects related to the law. He does so in both an engaging, but also common man style. This is not an academic read, but one for ordinary people.

A Republic, If You Can Keep It explains the idea of Textualism and Originalism and why they are both important. The case is made very well and in such a manner that it is easy to understand. How such a intellectually challenging exercise is so easily explained is a real feat. The basic ideas is that no judge is a philosopher king and they should read what the law actually says and follow the law regardless of "good or preferred" outcomes.

A Republic, If You Can Keep It is also a peek into his mind and thoughts on the law. He is very concerned for both access to the law and how expensive it is for the average person as well as the state of the law. Neil Gorsuch comes across as a deeply caring man for both the legal profession and what it means to America. He is very moved for the people he met along his travels and the help he received.

A Republic, If You Can Keep It also show s human side to the Judge. Telling stories of the first time he tried to climbing stairs wearing a robe and how he almost killed himself to going fishing the Justice Kennedy. His story of the elk Leroy is not to be missed.

A Republic, If You Can Keep It has one underlying theme he keep s returning too. Regardless of who is the judge, they are all hard working trying to do the best for the law. he stresses there are not politics, academic disagreements,yes, but not politics. Also stressed is the cases that make it to the Supreme Court are so hard that it take s the very highest court in the land to settle them, about 70 a year out of five million not counting traffic violations.

This is a great book to starting to read about the law and Supreme Court. Both easily read and understand, A Republic, If You Can Keep It is a wonderful read.

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Valuable Read

This book; though it is largely assembled from existing materials, provides valuable insight into the views and character of Justice Gorsuch. There’s nothing particularly groundbreaking here, but I feel that I step away from it with a better understanding of the man and confidence in him as a principled originalist.

[Samuel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoughtful. Chapter three is a tour-de-force on originalism and textualism. Good book explaining his philosophy in layman’s terms.

[Arthur · Rating 3 out of 5]

With ACB confirmed a week ago I was curious about originalism and textualism as it comes to interpretation of the Constitution. I listened to an unabridged audiobook. It was a bit dry at times but interesting overall.

This book helped convince me that separation of powers, not merely suggests, but even demands, a judiciary that applies this philosophy (originalism) to their decision making process.

There are portions that are repetitive in that the book does, in part, deal with past speeches Justice Gorsuch delivered, and there has been some crossover between them.
Rating. 3.7 (rounded 4).

[Jacob Williams]

1. Judicial philosophy

Within my liberal media bubble, originalism and textualism are typically derided as absurd and dangerous. My main interest in this book is Gorsuch’s defense of those philosophies. He defines them as follows:

Originalists believe that the Constitution should be read in our time the same way it was read when adopted.[1]

When interpreting statutes, [textualism] tasks judges with discerning (only) what an ordinary English speaker familiar with the law’s usages would have understood the statutory text to mean at the time of its enactment.[2]

Gorsuch favors “originalism in the application of the Constitution and textualism in the interpretation of statutes.”[3] It seems like originalism allows one’s interpretation of the text to be influenced by more contextual information about the writers’ intentions than textualism does. I wish Gorsuch had elaborated on why this is seen as more appropriate in the case of the Constitution, since it seems like some of his arguments against using such information to interpret statutes would apply just as well in the case of the Constitution.

Gorsuch believes it’s important for judges to follow the law as written even if it leads to a bad outcome in a particular case:

Indeed, a judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad judge, reaching for results he prefers rather than those the law compels.[4]

I do get the impression, though, that he thinks adhering to originalism will produce good outcomes much more reliably than a living-constitutionalist approach will. He even makes the following claim:

Virtually the entire anticanon of constitutional law we look back upon today with regret came about when judges chose to follow their own impulses rather than follow the Constitution’s original meaning. Look, for example, at Dred Scott and Korematsu. Neither can be defended as correct in light of the Constitution’s original meaning; each depended on serious judicial invention by judges who misguidedly thought they were providing a “good” answer to a pressing social problem of the day.[5]

I have no idea whether it’s true that most of the past’s infamous rulings represent deviations from the Constitution. It seems counterintuitive; why would we expect the Constitution (and its amendments) to be a highly reliable guide to justice?

Perhaps one answer Gorsuch has in mind, since he alludes to the temptation for judges to satisfy the desires of “passing majorities”[6], is that getting something into the Constitution requires a much more serious effort and much broader consensus than getting a judge into office. Constitutional amendments have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, whereas the power to appoint Supreme Court justices can be won with only a bare majority of electors and without even winning the popular vote. And amendments are more deliberate: you can just not ratify them, but you can’t just not elect a President (even if you hate both candidates).

Maybe more importantly, Gorsuch seems to think that pressure to bend the law often comes from public hatred for some group/minority. Perhaps these prejudices are less likely to have the broad, stable, and explicit consensus needed to be encoded into the Constitution. The Constitution’s accommodation of slavery is an obvious giant counterexample; but it does seem like most of the amendments are about extending more rights to more people, while only a few explicitly exclude some groups from rights that are granted to others.

But surely nobody would claim that our current Constitution is perfect or would give the best outcome in every individual case. For me the question is whether the overall benefits of consistently adhering to originalism can be expected to outweigh the harms it will sometimes cause. (I’m not sure Gorsuch would agree with that framing; for him it might be more a question of duty.) Two benefits the book mentions seem especially important:

1. Predictability. The idea of “rule of law” is that you should be able to know what does and doesn’t count as breaking the law before you find yourself sued or prosecuted for it. That’s much more difficult if judges decide cases on the basis of what they personally believe the law should be instead of the law as written. (F. A. Hayek wrote a whole book on this topic that I found really thought-provoking: The Constitution of Liberty . (It’s not about libertarianism.))

2. Separation of powers. The judiciary is far less directly answerable to public opinion than the legislature is, in order to help insulate judges from political pressures that would have them apply the law selectively based on the (un)popularity of the parties involved in a given case. But this also means it’s very undemocratic for judges to be making policy decisions.

To the latter point, I would add that relying on the Supreme Court to resolve contentious public debates seems to create political incentives that slowly push us to elevate the importance and power of the President. The main example I’m thinking of is abortion. Since the President can have a very long-lasting impact on the Court, once abortion came to be seen as primarily an issue for the Court rather than the legislature or states to decide, abortion became a continual wedge issue in presidential elections and determined the votes of many single-issue voters. But isn’t it kind of crazy for the President to have any say at all on the legality of abortion? Is that really the function of that office?

Overall, originalism makes a lot of sense to me, though I’d like to read more rebuttals before I’d hold that opinion too strongly. Also, I think there must at least theoretically be cases where the outcome prescribed by originalism would just be too horrible to justify via the sorts of arguments mentioned here. For example, suppose you’re a judge on a case like Dred Scott and (contra Gorsuch) you think the Constitution really does support the case’s original, evil outcome. Are you seriously going to say: sorry, my hands are tied, Black people can’t have rights? How would you live with yourself? And of course the same concern, that the stakes may just be too high to trust the decision to originalism, may apply to stuff like abortion and LGBTQ rights.

2. Goodreads reviews, reviewed

After reading the book, I read/skimmed all 139 reviews of it currently on Goodreads. Most reviewers seem to be conservatives—or at least, very few gave any indication of being liberals.

A couple conservative reviewers (Patrick O’Hannigan, Steve Hemmeke) complained about the pro-LGBTQ opinion Gorsuch wrote in Bostock v. Clayton County. I think the ruling is (some) evidence that Gorsuch sincerely believes in the textualist judicial philosophy he expounds in this book and is willing to follow it wherever he thinks it leads, rather than just being a Republican shill.

A presumably-liberal lawyer (Libba) wrote a moderately positive review expressing respect for Gorsuch despite not agreeing with originalism/textualism. Another presumed-liberal (Jim Robles) expressed sadness that the left “have lost the Supreme Court for a generation” but sees Gorsuch as “a decent thoughtful man” and seems relatively happy with his appointment. That’s my prima facie takeaway from the book too: Gorsuch comes across as principled and his arguments make a lot of sense. Of course, you can make a compelling argument for anything, the question is how well it holds up to counterarguments. Another reviewer (Ethan Berman) criticizes the book for “failing to even fathom why a judge would approach a case with a living constitution or consequentialist approach”; I don’t know if this is a flaw in the book itself, but I do think it would be important to hear the arguments against originalism/textualism directly from their supporters before assuming that Gorsuch’s arguments are decisive.

There are very few negative reviews, and they’re short on substantive criticism. One (Ben) says there’s “[h]ypocrisy on every page” but does not provide a specific example. Two of the high-profile decisions I’m familiar with, Bostock and Dobbs , both seem very much in line with originalist/textualist reasoning, even though my feelings about the outcomes are very different in the two cases (Bostock is wonderful, Dobbs is tragic). One of the main arguments of this book is that judges should follow the law as it is written even when doing so has bad consequences. So to show that Gorsuch’s rulings are hypocritical , it’s not enough to gesture vaguely at a multi-year period and say that was bad, right?? I want specific allegations, like this St. Andrews Law Review article’s claim that originalism was used in Dobbs but abandoned in the contemporaneous 2nd Amendment case New York v. Bruen. (I haven’t looked into the latter case enough to evaluate this.)

Since the book is several years old, it’s not surprising that few reviews mention the executive immunity case Trump v. United States, but at least one (Braden Boardman) does mention it as an example of a ruling that makes some of the book seem “hollow or naive”.

A lot of the book consists of excerpts from legal opinions Gorsuch wrote, and some reviewers found that uninteresting or unhelpful. Another (Matt) thinks the book “isn’t really relevant anymore” and says: “If you’re gonna take the time and energy reading about legal decisions to get a sense of Gorsuch, just read his legal decisions.” In preparing to write this review, I tried to do exactly that: read a bunch of Supreme Court decisions that Gorsuch was involved in. Having not done so before, I quickly realized I’d underestimated how time-consuming that could be: each case report is basically a book (especially when you include the concurrences and dissents), and of course they’re filled with very technical legal discussions. So I reduced my goal from “a bunch” to “a few” and did a lot of skimming. In general, reading the opinions and dissents made me less inclined to view the justices as partisan hacks, less confident in my ability to evaluate them, and more inclined to view the disputes as complicated.

One reviewer (another Ben) says “[s]ome parts … reeked with corniness”, which is a bit harsh, but the autobiographical content of the book definitely feels curated to be an uplifting bit of Americana as opposed to a raw look at messy realities of life. Another (Gregg) said it “came across as a confirmation tell-all”; I worry they may have read a different book, because this one seemed pretty tame to me.

A couple reviewers (Ron Me, Wesley Pratt) say the book is ghostwritten, with the former finding it suspicious that two other authors are listed on the cover but not in the book. But in fact those authors are also mentioned in the acknowledgments as “collaborators, former clerks, and friends”, and they were interviewed at SCOTUSBlog, where the interviewer notes:

Of all the books written by Supreme Court justices published while they were on the bench – some 350-plus such works – this may be the first one credited to former law clerks “with” a sitting justice. Typically, such collaborations are tucked away on the acknowledgements page, so it must have been a great honor when the justice extended this rare courtesy.

3. Other reviews, reviewed

Finding critical reviews from other sources was not easy either. L. Ali Khan’s review in New York Journal of Books does make an impassioned plea to reject the book’s legal philosophy:

The argument that “I personally don’t like it, but I’m compelled by law to do it” is unavailable to the Supreme Court Justices. If the founders wrote a racist legal text, do not follow them unless you agree with them.

…but doesn’t respond to the actual arguments the book gives for adopting such a follow-the-law-wherever-it-leads approach. Khan says he does not mean “to discredit the author’s enchantment with originalism or textualism, but to argue against enshrining the supremacy of certain legal methods and throwing away the others as intellectually deficient.” It’s not obvious to me how any judge could really view textualism as valid without implicitly seeing other approaches as less valid, though. Isn’t the whole point of textualism a refusal to let any consideration other than the meaning of the text, including how good or bad the outcome is, influence the ruling?

Jeffrey M. Winn’s review in New York Law Journal gives a little bit of flavor as to how—contrary to what the book might lead you to fear—living-constitution approaches need not involve judges arbitrarily exercising power in accordance with their personal values. For this he references a biography of Wiley Rutledge:

As a Supreme Court justice, Rutledge “felt free to deal with clashing values in concrete cases by applying his own vision of how constitutional principles best resolved the claims of everyone affected.” To reach a decision that was “constitutionally legitimate,” Rutledge believed that the opinion elaborating the decision “had to satisfy a test of coherence in addressing text and precedent that would lead even detractors to acknowledge that the ruling, if not on balance persuasive, had integrity.”

Winn says that “on the subject of originalism, the book lacks balance” and “never discusses a single case in which originalism was manipulated by activist justices to achieve certain conservative policy outcomes”. Winn gives the 2nd Amendment case District of Columbia v. Heller as such an example.

Heller also comes up in a review by Orrin Judd as an example of politically-motivated deviation from originalism:

…the Heller ruling that invented the right of individuals to keep handguns… represented a radical departure from two hundred years of American jurisprudence. This is kind of the right’s version of the left’s Roe v. Wade, a desired decision unmoored from the Constitution and republic liberty. Each side likes to imagine existential threats that flow from allowing laws they don’t like to stand and to see themselves as entitled to legislate from the bench to vindicate rights they wish were in the Constitution…

In a review for Inside sources, Christian Mammen talks about some of the difficulties textualists face in determining the “original and ordinary public meaning” of a text, and pushes back a bit against Gorsuch’s insistence that value judgments are never an acceptable way of resolving ambiguities.

Mammen also notes that in the 2017-2018 term, Gorsuch:

…emerged as the new swing vote on the Supreme Court. Of the 20 cases that were decided by a 5-4 vote, Gorsuch was in the majority on 13 of them, more than any other justice, and only half the time with the conservative bloc.

John J. Magyar in Modern Law Review offers a little commentary on disagreements among the Court’s textualist justices, along with an interesting discussion of gerrymandering...

(continued on my blog)

[Dav · Rating 4 out of 5]

.

A Republic, If You Can Keep It

• By Neil Gorsuch (with Jane Nitze and David Feder)
Published in 2019, about 350 pages.

OVERVIEW:
Justice Neil Gorsuch reflects on his journey to the Supreme Court, the role of the judge under our Constitution, and the vital responsibility of each American to keep our republic strong.

As Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention, he was reportedly asked what kind of government the founders would propose. He replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

In this book, Justice Neil Gorsuch shares personal reflections, speeches, and essays that focus on the remarkable gift the framers left us in the Constitution.

...He discusses the role of the judge in our constitutional order, and why he believes that originalism and textualism are the surest guides to interpreting our nation’s founding documents and protecting our freedoms...

Along the way, Justice Gorsuch reveals some of the events that have shaped his life and outlook, from his upbringing in Colorado to his Supreme Court confirmation process. And he emphasizes the pivotal roles of civic education, civil discourse, and mutual respect in maintaining a healthy republic...

•

The intro begins with Justice Gorsuch in Colorado as a mostly unknown judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2016 he learned his name was added to Donald Trump's second list of SCOTUS potentials. A couple months later he's nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States. The purpose of the book is to spur interest in the Constitution designed by the framers and the role of the judge.

A brief memoir is included concerning his life in Colorado and stories of his parents, grandparents and wife Louise from England. Having worked as a clerk for a Supreme Court Justice he knew some of the current justices and tells of a fly-fishing adventure with his mentor the late Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch also inherited Scalia's mounted trophy elk (Leroy).

1) First he deals with civics and civility. Our blessings of liberty rely on civic responsibility (being informed or involved in government and educating the next generation) and virtues of civility (not making enemies of the opposition party). "...democracy depends on our ability to reason and work with those who hold very different convictions..."

2) The Constitution and division of powers: Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. Gives examples of violations of the separation of powers, judges whose rulings create law or deny laws or who apply their political preference in rulings, etc. And he presents Scalia's vision of "the good and faithful judge."

3) Originalism and Textualism are presented as the best theories of interpretation for judges based on our constitution and the framers intent. Detailed examples of both are given as well as the competing theories which have proven to be problematic.
Originalism: interpreting the constitution using the original meaning from from the time when it was ratified.
Textualism: using a statute's (a law's) ordinary meaning from the time when it was enacted.

An example: a living constitutionalist believes the Constitution's meanings can be changed over time to fit current affairs. Applying this method and disregarding originalism gave us the Dred Scott decision (an African American was not a US citizen and could not sue for freedom 1857) and this method allowed for the internment of Japanese-Americans (Korematsu vs. the USA 1944).

Not in the book, but relevant: ["...a living Constitution becomes not the Constitution at all; in fact it is not even law any more. It is just some gauzy ideas that appeal to the judges who happen to be in power at a particular time and that they impose on the rest of us." Strauss - The Living Constitution, 2010.]

4) The art of judging - goes into the traits, practices and attitudes of a good judge. Lawyerly and judicial courage, kindness to the opposition etc. It also covers precedent (prior decisions) and how to determine whether to follow precedent or overrule it.

5) Toward Justice For All: begins with the story of the cattle baron's attack on the sodbusters and the lawyer who let them get away with murder. Gorsuch suggests possible reforms to the problems of: law school being too expensive; attorney's fees being too high; lawyer tactics etc.

6) Ethics, a law class taught by Gorsuch, where he tried to instill in his students the goals of being a good lawyer and a good person.

7) From 10th circuit court judge to Supreme Court Justice. He goes into the nomination and confirmation process and various difficulties.


.


The book details the role of the judge, the three branches of government, separation of powers, theories for properly interpreting the Constitution, criticism of opposing interpretations and much more. Some of it can be quite interesting. Other parts, speeches or cases go on a bit too long. Some parts are jargon-ridden and can be mind-numbingly tedious.

It's quite good and he clearly makes the case for judges adhering to originalism and avoiding political bias. However, some of the in-depth examination of political science and jurisprudence got wearisome.

Surprisingly Gorsuch ignores all the vitriol that surrounded his confirmation and his conservative - originalist views. The left, the Democratic Party vehemently opposes conservative judges and instead believes in the living Constitution theory of interpretation--an ever-changing Constitution. Gorsuch was confirmed by all the Republicans and only three Democrats voting in his favor.

He makes a point of all of the times conservative and liberal judges agree on cases. His rulings are thoughtfully considered, based on the law and the facts and takes into account opposing views. Of those with whom he disagrees, he believes they too "...have the best interests of the country at heart."

"...remember that democracy depends on our ability to reason and work with those who hold very different convictions and beliefs than our own."

[That's not what I saw when he was nominated and confirmed. The Liberals seem to hate conservatives and the GOP and it's only gotten worse. When a second conservative Justice (Kavanaugh) was nominated they went nuts. Today, the Dem's Senate minority leader (Schumer) threatened Gorsuch during a speech outside the Supreme Court. What are they afraid of, that they won't get the result they want unless it's a capricious Constitution?]





..

[Cheryl · Rating 5 out of 5]

I always enjoy reading books about our Supreme Court Justices on both sides of the aisle: Sonja Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Sandra Day O’Conner, just to name a few. It helps me to understand their perspectives on the law and how they might reach their judicial decisions.


Cases do not ordinarily reach the Supreme Court unless they are difficult cases. Before he became a Supreme Court Justice, Gorsuch was part of the Tenth Circuit Appeals Court which covers the middle of the US, six states, in two time zones covering 20 percent of the US. He has presided over 2700 cases as an appellate judge and 97% were decided unanimously. People are under the misconception that SCOTUS routinely rules 5-4 or 6-3. That’s not the case at all. In the first case he wrote as a Tenth Circuit appeals judge that reached the Supreme Court, the decision was 5-4. The court affirmed Gorsuch’s decision in the appellate court with Justice Thomas and Sotomayor in agreement for Gorsuch’s decision and Justices Stevens and Scalia dissenting. Not what most would expect of course yet it happens often. In fact, Justices Thomas and Sotomayor agree about 60% of the time and Stevens and Scalia agreed much more than 60% of the time. Roughly half of SCOTUS cases are decided unanimously but those are not the cases that get the most media attention.


It was very interesting to read about originalism and textualism. Gorsuch writes about multiple examples of why it is so important for judges to make decisions based on the constitution not on their perceptions of an evolving or living constitution. When judges make decisions based on their perceptions of an evolving or living constitution, they too often move outside their roles as impartial and independent arbiters of the law and move into the role that rightfully belongs to the legislative branch of the government. As Chief Justice John Roberts once said, Scotus’ job is to call balls and strikes.

Here’s a good example (for my tennis friends).
“For a judge bound to respect and not violate the terms of a written law he has sworn to support, the natural starting point for resolving any dispute over it’s meaning must be the ordinary meaning of that term at the time of its enactment. After all, that’s how we interpret most every text. When Hamlet threatens to “make a ghost of him that lets me,” the reference may seem unclear to the modern reader. But when you look at a contemporaneous dictionary you quickly discover that “let” means “hinder” (as the term is still used in tennis today, when the ball is hindered by the net.) So, most everyone today would agree that Hamlet was not threatening to kill someone who wanted to be killed; it’s clear that Hamlet was threatening to kill anyone who got in his way. Confusion solved by the original public meaning.”


This book includes a number of speeches that the author has given, a memoir of his growing up, discussions of some important Supreme Court cases, judges who dissented with a decision and faced the wrath of the public for their courage as a result. Judge Gorsuch states multiple times that if a judge is doing their job the way they should, there will be times when they rule opposite the way they personally would like to rule.


The title comes from a comment from Benjamin Franklin. After he left the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, he was asked what kind of government the founders would propose. Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” We have a government with coequal judicial, legislative and executive branch. It seems that lately the boundaries and checks and balances between those three branches have been weakened. I truly hope we can keep the republic that our founders envisioned.

[Ty Turley Trejo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellently written, of course. The book is more an amalgamation of his past speeches and written judicial opinions cobbled together and organized under thematic unity, and it works. It’s not really a treatise, in case you’re looking for that.

It’s always fascinating to get in the head of a Supreme Court Justice, and this was no exception. I feel a slight connection with Justice Gorsuch because I attended University of Colorado Law school for my first year of law school and I lived in a neighboring town to his home of Niwot. Gorgeous country.

While the jury is still out for me on my opinion of judicial philosophy, I really enjoyed learning about Justice Gorsuch’s well thought-out approach. I didn’t agree with everything in this book, but it gave me much food for thought and made me want to read and learn more about all judicial approaches to interpreting the law. We only scratch the surface of this in law school, and really only learn by reading the various opinions by justices. We are taught the canons of construction, but judicial philosophy appears to be an individual, not an institutional journey.

I appreciated all the personal stories!
Some great quotes:
- “Today it sometimes seems that many people in our society think that whatever is bad must be unconstitutional—and whatever is good the Constitution must compel.”
- “Vague laws invite arbitrary power.”
- “If the law is left to what can be found in the breast of a judge, it would only serve to make every judge a legislator.” (Blackstone)
- “Legal clarity thus becomes the chain that binds the brilliant judge from *fixing* society.”

Lastly, I did find it strange that a judge known as an originalist chose not to include any in-line sourcing for his text. He only provides loose citations for all the speeches and judicial opinions at the end of the book. I’m always a fan of sourcing so I can seek out primary sources. It seems an originalist would share the same view.

[Nathan Park · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked this book (3/5 stars). I remember taking AP Gov in high school and learning about the two methods of interpreting the Constitution, Originalism and Living Constitutionalism, and just automatically linking Conservative -> Originalism and Liberal -> Living Constitutionalism. Although the correlation is present, Justice Gorsuch corrects my thinking. Originalists are not Conservative, they are conservative in the sense that the Constitution's original intent should be conserved.

I found Justice Gorsuch's argumentation for Originalism convincing. He lays out the groundwork by arguing that the separation of powers among the three branches of government is important to uphold. Because of this, he interprets the Constitution in an Originalist way. Justice Gorsuch believes the Living Constitutionalism interpretation is an act of the judicial branch overstepping to the legislative branch's realm of power. Judges interpreting law according to how they think it should evolve and change over time, gives a panel of 9 un-elected people the power to essentially "amend" laws. He goes into much more detail and is 100 times more convincing in the actual book compared to what's written above.

Another thing I enjoyed about this book are the various cases Justice Gorsuch detailed. I've never read anything law related (unless you count flashcards in AP Gov), but they reminded me of mathematical proofs except without substituting phrases with "p" and "q". I had to reread many of the logic flows to really understand the argument.

In closing, I gained more understanding of what it means to be a judge.

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

      3 stars!
    

“Through our history the lawyers who have made the greatest mark on this country were the one that were willing to stand firm for justice in the face of immense pressure and often at grave personal costs”

This novel let me a distinct look in the judiciary view of one of the most important judges on planet earth, and i appreciate it for doing just that.
I learned a lot from the chapters discussing Originalism and how it can be implanted in different situations and in different cases.
Some parts of the novel reeked with corniness, but I guess it comes with the title and the fact that Gorsuch is still an active judge.
I think i should perhaps read, in the foreseeable future, a novel by a liberal judge just to equalize my point of view on the matter.

READ AS BOTH AN E-BOOK!

Quotes I Liked:
“I'm a member of the only profession known to mankind the could call a ten thousand work document a 'brief.' "

"Taking a risk may mean anxiety along the way, but it will make you wildly happy if it succeeds and wiser if it fails."

"Once, when he was asked what he had learned form his time on the playing field, he said: 'When the whistle blows you have only a limited amount of time to do what you have to do. You either do it then, or you don't do it at all.' "

New Words:
Parsimonious
Tort
Somnambulism
Calumny
Rancor
Fiduciary

        Until next time!
      

[Adrian R. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Justice Gorsuch is a highly intelligent and genuine writer, who is informative, but often delivers information in a very dense format. This book covers his perspective on jurisprudence and the system of justice in America. While I think the book is certainly worthy of the time investment to read for the sake of information, it is a difficult read. The book is generally a collection of speeches, opinions, and assessments which Justice Gorsuch has given throughout his career. As such, the book feels more akin to reading separate articles which touch on a broad variety of subjects. Which can be tedious to read.

However the book is very informative, providing Justice Gorsuch's position on originalism and textualism, as well as his perspective on what endangers American justice and political integrity. Agree with him, or disagree with him, his perspective is one which has and will continue to influence and change American justice, and should best be understood through an objective lens.

[Annie Jarman · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a helter-skelter compilation of his Justice Gorsuch's thoughts on a wide range of issues and topics. It was randomly divided between what I termed the book (which expounds on his argument about how the separation of powers is breaking down and the dangers that cause) and his personal paraphernalia (anecdotes, former speeches, court opinions, etc).
I really liked the book sections. The argument was well made and persuasive and I learned a great deal about the justice system in America. He uses his platform to bring attention to the many failings of the justice system and offer solutions. His core theme was enumerating the threat to the republic when judges/executives legislate, executives/legislators judge, and judges/legislators execute. He provided a lot of evidence on how this sharing of powers happens and addressed many counterpoints. He did not, however, offer any thoughts on how to remedy or stop power-sharing.
The other inclusions of the book were largely focused on minute details of cases. Some of them were interesting and informative but the majority were beyond my scope of comprehension.
Mostly, I felt like this book needed better organization and a harsher editor. There was still some good stuff in there though.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book is much more than a memoir where justice Gorsuch tells us about his life, background, influences and his professional path to an appointment to the Unites States Supreme Court...It serves as a warning that, as founded, we the people have had our economic, political, legal and personal liberties diminished over time and the "culprit" has been a willingness of our political institutions to erode the distinctions present in the foundational principle of "Checks and Balances"...Also provided is a solution to this slippery slope of returning to "originalist" and "textual" interpretation of the meaning of our great Constitution, thus the title's reference to Franklin's famous quote...Good food for thought!

[Don · Rating 5 out of 5]

what should be law verses what is law. People are often unreasonable illogical and self-centered Forgive them anyway. If you are kind people may accuse you of selfish motives Be kind anyway. If you are successful you will win some false fiends and some true enemies Succeed anyway. If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you Be honest and sincere anyway. What you spend years building someone could destroy overnight Build anyway. If you find serenity and happiness they may be jealous Be happy anyway. The good you do today people will often forget tomorrow Do good anyway. Give the world the best you have and it may never be enough Give them your best anyway. In the final analysis it is between you and God It never was between you and them anyway. Mother Teresa.

[E · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm glad to have read this book. From the title you might think it would touch on politics, but it steers clear entirely. Gorsuch is concerned to promote a healthy judicial philosophy. He harps again and again on separation of powers (rightfully so), stressing that a good judge is humble. A good judge might not like all of the policy ramifications of his decisions, but that is not his concern. His concern is textualism--interpreting the law as written, not as we might like it to have been written or as Congress might like to have written it as it would be written if we were seeking result X or Y.

Textualism is of course linked to originalism, which reads the Constitution in light of what its words, phrases, and clauses meant at the time of ratification. Nothing more or nothing less. Again, this requires a judge to demonstrate restraint and not to see himself as a latter-day Founder. Just for fun I went back and watched some of Gorsuch's senate judiciary committee hearing. Contrast Mrs. Feinstein's speech on Day 1 about a "living constitution" with Gorsuch's repeated insistence in Day 2 on text-based, not outcome-based, decision-making.

The remainder of the book is focused on ways to make the legal profession more ethical, more welcoming, and more affordable. He includes a wonderful tribute to Byron White as well as the text of a few of his post-nomination-to-Scotus speeches. It is clear from this book that Gorsuch is a humble man, committed to the rule of law and dead-set against judicial adventurism. He is not concerned with ruling with the "little guy" or upholding "special interests." He reads the law closely and applies it. He is in my opinion a model justice.

[Nathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Justice Gorsuch narrates his own book, full of interesting anecdotes and insights from his years as a lawyer, judge, justice, husband, and father (and westerner). Gorsuch opines on the separation of powers, the rule of law, interpretation, problematic case and statutory law, ethics, and private/public life. This book is written for the layperson, but there are parts that seem like they'd be esoteric to one not trained in the language of law. Still, the insights the justice offers are worthy of consideration and contemplation.

[Sam Taylor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good writer, justice, and person. Recommend reading it slowly and maybe while reading another book

[Heather · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a good book that helped me understand more about the Constitution, the law, our republic, the role of the Supreme Court, Congress, and each of us as citizens. I appreciated the important reminder of the uniqueness of our three branches of government, the role of our judges and lawmakers, and our responsibility to be engaged in our community and country to help keep the power with the people. What a unique and wonderful blessing and responsibility to live in this republic! I was impressed by Justice Gorsuch's humility and pointing to the framers' courage for establishing this country and our Constitution. Here are a few quotes I liked:

"Lady Justice is portrayed with a blindfold for a reason (p. 7)."

"With a republic comes responsibility. Self-government is a hard business... To succeed where so many others had failed, the framers understood that our republic needs citizens who know how their government works--and who are capable of, and interested in, participating in its administration. We won't always agree about the right policies for the day. That's to be expected, even treasured. After all, the capacity to express, debate, and test all ideas is part of what makes a republic strong (p. 7)."

"This republic belongs to us all--and it is up to all of us to keep it (p. 8)."

"To ensure that the laws able to survive this careful process are vigorously enforced, the framers gave the power to execute the law to a single president rather than trust management by committee--but they also sought to ensure that the president could never arrogate the power to make laws or judge persons under them (p. 9)."

"When it comes to the business of judging, our separation of powers makes clear that a judge's task is not to pursue his own policy vision for the country, whether in the name of some political creed, social science theory, or any other consideration extrinsic to the law (p. 10)."

"How can a self-governing people rule themselves if so many do not understand how our government works or the limits on its powers? How can we expect our own rights to be protected if we are not willing to respect the rights of others in return (p. 11)?"

"To serve the American people on our highest court is a humbling responsibility. In our history, only 114 men and women have done so (p. 17)."

"A government of and by the people rests on the belief that the people should and can govern themselves--and do so in peace, with mutual respect (p. 20)."

"'We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection (Lincoln, p. 20).'"

"The essential goodness of the American people is a profound reservoir of strength, and this nation has overcome much graver challenges time and again. But we should never ignore the fact that republics have a mixed record in the history books. Our blessings cannot be taken for granted and need constant tending (p. 21)."

"Who did I want looking down on me and who did I want to look up to every day (p. 22)?"

"While we might hold similar views on judging, Justice Scalia and I held very different views about fishing (p. 23)."

"'Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens... The humblest is the peer of the most powerful (Justice Harlan, p. 24).'"

"Professional disagreements are expected in our line of work, and they are not the same thing as personal ones (p. 26)."

"Many across the world thought this bold experiment in self-government was bound to fail, and the founders themselves recognized it would hardly prove self-perpetuating (p. 26)."

"In our country the ruling class is supposed to be the whole of the American people (p. 27)."

"You're more likely to speak your mind freely if you know that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech (p. 27)."

"If we are to be a self-governing people, we need to know not just our rights but the structures that protect them (p. 27)."

"There's nothing in the Constitution that forbids the people's representatives from adopting stupid laws (p. 28)."

"The challenge when it comes to civics...isn't limited to education but extends to engagement (p. 28)."

"Keeping our republic depends not just on passing knowledge to the next generation; it depends on able young people willing to take on the challenge--and accept the sacrifices--of self-government (p. 29)."

"'Public business must always be done by somebody... If wise men decline it others will not (John Adams, p. 29).'"

"'The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming (TR, p. 29).'"

"Most rights bear a corresponding responsibility (p. 31)."

"I worry that, just as we face a civics crisis in this country today, we face a civility crisis too (p. 31)."

"Without civility, the bonds of friendship in our communities dissolve, tolerance dissipates, and the pressure to impose order and uniformity through public and private coercion mounts (p. 31)."

"'If you do good, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives. Do good anyway... The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway (Mother Teresa, p. 32).'"

"The path to taking the oath almost always involves sacrifices and hard choices (p. 35)."

"We are a nation of immigrants... It is no small thing that the founders claimed our new government was formed by 'We the People.' They didn't say the government was formed by the Continental Army or the Congress or the States or some bureaucratic drafting committee... The founders made clear that one of the great obligations of American citizens is to ensure that power continues to reside in the people (p. 36)."

"Today, you join a people still striving to make real the ideals of the Declaration's promise that all people are created equal and entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (p. 27)."

"The framers divided the powers of the federal government into three branches. It was a radical innovation at the time, and it may be one of their most important contributions to human liberty (p. 40)."

"The framers knew separating the authority to write the law from the authority to execute it is essential to keep the executive branch from engaging in the sort of tyranny they experienced before the Revolution and that we see today in authoritarian regimes around the world (p. 42)."

"Judges should...strive...to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history--not to their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best (p. 48)."

"Consider the constitution. Judges must do more than merely consider it. They take an oath to uphold it (p. 50)."

"The law bears its own distinctive structure, language, coherence, and integrity (p. 57)."

"The difficulties of the legislative process were essential to its design, purposefully placed there to ensure that laws would be more likely the product of deliberation than hast; more likely the product of compromise among the many than the will of the few; and more likely to respect minority interests than trample on their rights (p. 63)."

"Congress makes the laws and you are free to vote your representative in our out at regular intervals (p. 64)."

"The judiciary isn't just made up of life-appointed judges who have considerably more freedom to depart from majoritarian norms and political pressures... It's also composed of juries (p. 68)."

"By transferring more and more power from the legislature and judiciary to the executive, we alter piece by piece the framers' work and risk the underlying values it was designed to serve (p. 73)."

"The founders considered the separation of powers a vital guard against governmental encroachment on the people's liberties (p. 76)."

"The framers' concerns about the delegation of legislative power had a great deal to do with the criminal law (p. 90)."

"Vague laws invite arbitrary power (p. 96)."

"The adoption of new laws restricting liberty is supposed to be a hard business, the product of an open and public debate among a large and diverse number of elected representatives (p. 100)."

"We were told that the Constitution is a 'living' document (p. 105)."

"On the other side of the debate lies originalism. Originalists believe that the Constitution should be read in our time the same way it was read when it was adopted (p. 110)."

"Others argue that originalism fails to afford sufficient respect to precedent (p. 113)."

"Any serious discussion of the constitutional interpretation must begin with the Constitution (p. 116)."

"'This Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land (p. 116).'"

"Originalism seeks to enforce the Constitution and its amendments consistent with the understandings of the people who were alone legally authorized to adopt them (p. 120)."

"Insulating judges from democratic accountability also reveals the founders' assumption that judges would resolve ambiguity using neutral and well-known rules of interpretation, not their own 'living' and 'evolving' values (p. 123)."

"There's no doubt that inventing a new law instead of applying the written one can be tempting (p. 144)."

"Just because you have to entrust a third party with your data doesn't necessarily mean you should lose all Fourth Amendment protections in it (p. 163)."

"When the current statute's language is clear, it must be enforced just as Congress wrote it (p. 170)."

"A good judge listens carefully to colleagues, appreciating the different perspectives each brings to bear... While judging is meant to be a relatively humble business, that does not mean it's an easy one (p. 178)."

"People can easily forget that the law is meant to protect the beloved and the detested alike, and a judge who enforces the law equally for disfavored and favored persons alike will not usually win a popularity contest (p. 179)."

"Courage has been essential to the rule of law in this country from the beginning (p. 181)."

"Make a daily habit of courage in small matters, and that habit will enable you to persevere when the big ones arrive (p. 185)."

"Take the risk (p. 185)."

"The easy path is to shun those with whom you disagree. Show the courage of kindness (p. 185)."

"We are a nation under laws as adopted by the people, not a nation ruled by unelected elders (p. 194)."

"So...what are judges supposed to do when faced with...a cryptic congressional statute whose meaning is genuinely ambiguous (p. 195)?"

"Plainly, a meaningful analytical distinction does exist between intending and foreseeing a consequence (p. 206)."

"When should judges follow--or overrule--a prior decision they earnestly believe to be mistaken (p. 211)?"

"A judicial precedent does its most strenuous work when a later court things it's wrong (p. 214)."

"The past can teach valuable lessons inherently worthy of our respect. Precedent is a way of accumulating and passing down the learning of past generations (p. 217)."

"Cases are decided one at a time, and rules often take shape only slowly and from the accumulation of case-specific decisions pointing in the same direction (p. 217)."

"By seeking to ensure some consistency in outcomes among decisionmakers, the doctrine of precedent may simultaneously promote respect for the judiciary as a neutral source (p. 217)."

"The American judiciary doesn't treat precedent as an ironclad edict (p. 219)."

"The rule of law in this country is something every American can rightly take great pride in (p. 237)."

"The idea that a jury of your peers should decide your fate--not a prosecutor holding all the cards, not an opposing lawyer versed in discovery games--is a core principle of our democracy (p. 243)."

"Twelve people working together in good faith can see and hear more of what's happening in a courtroom than any single person might (p. 243)."

"Our civil justice system is too expensive for most to afford (p. 244)."

"Without written laws, we lack fair notice of the rules we must obey (p. 247)."

"I wonder whether cynicism about the law flourishes so freely only because--for all its blemishes--the rule of law in our society is so successful that sometimes it's hard to see (p. 249)."

"The vast majority of disputes coming to our courts are ones in which all judges do agree on the outcome (p. 251)."

"This court has a duty to do more than observe, record, and warn. It has a duty to act (p. 272)."

"Would your grandmother approve of your behavior (p. 303)?"

"Writing is hard. It forces you to focus exactingly on the logic of your argument and it is a solitary job. But it is a rewarding one too (p. 305)."

"Don't take yourself too seriously (p. 307)."

"Did you come to law school to make money or make a difference? I suspect it was to make a real difference in your community and the world around you. Don't forget that (p. 308)."

"We hold different political and religious views, but we are united in love (p. 317)."

"Success in life has little to do with success. Kindness...is the great virtue (p. 317)."

"Putting on a robe doesn't make me any smarter (p. 320)."

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

What is A Republic, If You Can Keep It about?

Quoting from the book jacket: “…Justice [Neil] Gorsuch draws on his nearly thirty-year career as a lawyer, teacher, judge, and justice to explore essential aspects of our Constitution, its separation of powers, and the liberties it is designed to protect. He discusses the role of the judge in our constitutional order, and why he believes that originalism and textualism [emphasis added] are the surest guides to interpreting our nation’s founding documents and protecting our freedoms. He explains, too, the importance of affordable access to the courts in realizing the promise of equal justice under law—while highlighting some of the challenges we face on this front today…A Republic, If You Can Keep It offers compelling insights into Justice Gorsuch’s faith in America and its founding documents, his thoughts on our Constitution’s design and the judge’s place within it, and his beliefs about the responsibilities each of us shares to sustain our distinctive republic of, by, and for ‘We the People.’ “

This book is an easy read and gives a clear explanation of the rule of law and what role each branch of our government is charged to uphold. [Spoiler Alert: The framers of the U.S. Constitution assigned the power to make/create laws to the legislative branch, the power to execute/uphold the laws to the executive branch, and the power to apply the law as it is written to specific disputes in a neutral and impartial manner to the judicial branch.]

I found the following observation noted in the book (page 20) to be particularly disconcerting: “According to polling by the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, 60 percent of Americans would flunk the U.S. citizenship test. In fact, it seems only one state—Vermont—has a majority of people who could pass it (and even then, many only with a D). Polling by the Annenberg Public Policy Center suggests that half of Americans don’t know that freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment. And, yet, according to a survey by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, it seems about 10 percent believe Judith Sheindlin serves on the Supreme Court. You may know her better as Judge Judy [on TV] ...” This is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the public education system in the United States today and over the last few decades.

The content of this book should be required reading in every high school civics class and for every adult who is interested in maintaining this fragile republic known as the United States of America.

[Hannah · Rating 4 out of 5]

A collection of opinions and speeches by Justice Gorsuch on topics close to his heart, each section introduced by personal anecdotes that offer a bit of his personality. I listened to the audio book narrated by the author himself, which helps capture the tone (dedicated to separation of powers and unsurprisingly suspicious of consequentialism and purposivism). An inspiring read.

[Matt · Rating 1 out of 5]

I borrowed this from a library, but nearly the entirety of this $30 book is reassembled from prior writings and speeches, most of which could be found online. I suppose Gorsuch and his co-authors curate the material but even so.

[Raymon · Rating 3 out of 5]

My favorite parts of the books were the personal stories and hearing how he was called to the Supreme Court. I agreed with a lot of his ideas including his focus on originalism. However, this book was filled with legal jargon and wasn’t always accessible as a normal person.