Gorsuch Read online

  Thank you for downloading this Simon & Schuster ebook.

  * * *

  Get a FREE ebook when you join our mailing list. Plus, get updates on new releases, deals, recommended reads, and more from Simon & Schuster. Click below to sign up and see terms and conditions.

  CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP

  Already a subscriber? Provide your email again so we can register this ebook and send you more of what you like to read. You will continue to receive exclusive offers in your inbox.

  TO CHRIS

  TO THE MEMORY OF JIM GREENYA, MIKE GREENYA, AND DENISE DEL PRIORE GREENYA.

  R.I.P.

  Contents

  Epigraph

  Introduction

  CHAPTER ONE:

  A Western Childhood

  CHAPTER TWO:

  A Fine Education

  CHAPTER THREE:

  Clerking

  CHAPTER FOUR:

  Love and Marriage

  CHAPTER FIVE:

  The Practice of Law

  CHAPTER SIX:

  A Year at DOJ

  CHAPTER SEVEN:

  On the Bench

  CHAPTER EIGHT:

  A Way with Words

  CHAPTER NINE:

  Neil Gorsuch: Scalia Lite or Scalia 3.0?

  CHAPTER TEN:

  The Confirmation Hearings

  Conclusion

  Author’s Note

  Appendix A

  Appendix B

  Acknowledgments

  About the Author

  Notes

  Bibliography

  Index

  I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CLARIFY

  —NOBODY SPEAKS FOR ME.

  NOBODY.

  I DON’T HAVE SPOKESMEN.

  I’M A JUDGE. I SPEAK FOR MYSELF.

  —Judge Neil Gorsuch, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, March 21, 2017

  Introduction

  At exactly two minutes past 8:00 p.m. on January 31, 2017, in the East Room of the White House, Donald J. Trump presented the nation with Neil McGill Gorsuch of Colorado, the person he had selected to fill the United States Supreme Court seat left vacant by the sudden death of Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016.

  One of the most unusual aspects of the ceremony was that the name of the nominee had not leaked and spoiled the surprise. In the early days of the young administration, most of Trump’s choices, especially those of his cabinet members, had been leaked. Not this one. The important secret had been kept, and then revealed with all the deft theatricality of a finale on The Apprentice.

  On Monday the thirtieth, Trump had phoned Gorsuch and told him he was his nominee. Trump’s eventual list of twenty-one had gone down to six, four, and then two before Neil Gorsuch became the president’s pick.

  The physical route by which the forty-nine-year-old jurist and his wife, Louise, had made it to Washington for the Big Reveal had been cleverly concealed from the media. After he got the call from Trump on Monday telling him he was the nominee, the judge and his wife went to the house of a friend who also lived in Boulder. There they were met by several lawyers from the office of the White House Counsel who briefed Gorsuch on how the next night’s ceremony would go down.

  After the briefing, Judge and Mrs. Gorsuch were driven—by a circuitous, back-roads route—to the Denver airport where they boarded a military jet for the flight to Joint Base Andrews, just outside Washington. In D.C. they spent Monday night at the home of friends, where they were picked up the next day and driven to the White House.

  Later that same day, Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters, “You saw a very well planned out and well-executed strategy tonight. This was a great effort by the entire team.”

  The reactions to the president’s nominee from both sides of the political aisle were immediate and predictable. Senator Charles Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Gorsuch was “an extraordinary judge,” but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called him an “ideologue.” Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, and Nan Aron, president of the progressive Alliance for Justice, used the same word—“disastrous”—to describe the Gorsuch nomination.

  Given the relatively recent history of battles over nominees to the Supreme Court, such disparity of views should come as no surprise. This time, however, the Democrats were, understandably, still furious over the fact that the Republicans, in a move that had Democrats screaming “Foul,” had blocked the confirmation of Judge Merrick Garland, then-president Obama’s choice to fill the Scalia seat. Never before in American judicial history had this happened, and the wound was still raw.

  ACCORDING TO SENATOR SCHUMER (D-NY), Judge Gorsuch “owe[d] it to the American people to provide an inkling of what kind of justice he would be.” The minority leader may have wished that Neil Gorsuch felt he owed that duty to the American people, but if he had, it would have gone against decades and decades of actual practice.

  In 1993—twenty-two years before the confirmation hearings of Chief Justice John (“I call balls and strikes”) Roberts, no less a liberal icon than Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an interviewer, in an oft-quoted statement in the pre–“going viral” era, that she would give “no hints, no forecasts, no previews.” One commentator wrote that Gorsuch “proved an especially ardent follower of what has come to be known as the Ginsburg rule.”

  In the six-week period between the nomination and the beginning of the confirmation hearings on March 20, Gorsuch began the charm offensive, visits to senators’ offices so they could take his measure to help them decide how to vote on his nomination. Even though they knew better (or should have), many senators used the occasion of these visits to ask Gorsuch how he would rule on specific cases or issues.

  Neil Gorsuch is a tall, pleasant-looking man with strong features, a full head of prematurely gray hair, and a trim physique. While answering questions or reading his statement, he sat up straight, as if posing early for Mount Rushmore. The morning after the hearings opened, a Washington Post story headlined “Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch’s First Day of Hearings” featured glowing assessments from Republicans and vows of further scrutiny from Democrats.

  “Gorsuch,” it said, “steered clear of controversy,” and “tried to reassure senators he was a mainstream jurist who was in the majority in 99 percent of the 10 years of cases he decided on the appeals court. Gorsuch said he has ruled ‘for disabled students, prisoners, undocumented immigrants, the rich and poor, and against such persons, too. But my decisions have never reflected a judgment about the people before me—only my best judgment about the law and facts at issue in each particular case.’ ”

  At forty-nine, Neil Gorsuch has a commanding presence. While delivering his thirteen-minute statement in a firm voice and with a resolute manner, he even looked western. The conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer agreed: In a panel discussion on Fox News’ Special Report, several days before the hearings began, Krauthammer said, of Gorsuch, “This guy’s out of central casting. This is a Gary Cooper character. Attacking him is a losing proposition.”

  Gorsuch may not, like the late movie star, say “Yup,” but he is given to expressions that make him sound older than his forty-nine years. On the day after Gorsuch gave his opening statement, Dana Milbank, the Washington Post’s sometimes snarky but never dull political columnist, wrote: “The nomination of Neil Gorsuch presents the Senate with a constitutional dilemma: Is this nation prepared to have Eddie Haskell serving a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court?” Eddie Haskell is the “Golly, gee-whiz, Mrs. Cleaver” character from the television show Leave It to Beaver.

  That Neil Gorsuch speaks like an older person and uses terms that make him sound retro compared to his contemporaries is not surprising to those who have known him for a long time. Dr. Steven Ochs
, who has taught advanced placement history at Georgetown Prep for four decades and was faculty advisor to the student council the year Gorsuch was senior class president, recalls, “There is a way in which Neil always was older, or seemed older, than his age, even back then. He was more involved in and knowledgeable about the political issues of the day than the others in his class.”

  Another surprising distinction is that, in contrast to her son, Neil’s mother, the late Anne Gorsuch Burford (she divorced Neil’s father, David Gorsuch, in 1982 and married Robert Burford the following year), was known for her colorful use of language, making her what reporters call “good copy.”

  In agreeing to step down as head of the Environmental Protection Agency, she did so only after negotiating a promise that once the dust had settled she would be offered a position of comparable status in the Reagan administration. But when that offer turned out to be for a seat on the Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, she told the press she had turned it down because the job was a “nothing-burger.” (That term was seldom heard after Burford left Washington, but it resurfaced in the presidential campaign of 2017 when Hillary Clinton used it to describe her emails problem.)

  TWO ELEMENTS MADE THE Gorsuch hearings seem surreal. One was extraneous to the proceedings, and the other absolutely central to their outcome.

  The first was the fact that while his nominee was fielding questions with aplomb, the president of the United States was having a tumultuous, volatile first one hundred days, which made everything he put forward marked by opposition and requiring a fight for passage.

  The second element, the more central one, was that many observers, from court experts to men and women on the street, viewed the whole Judiciary Committee hearings as an exercise in frustration, because the Democrats did not have the votes to block the Gorsuch nomination. Or, if they somehow got them, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the man who’d kept his party from even considering President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland, had promised he would change the rules so that a simple majority vote—not a sixty-vote “supermajority”—would be sufficient to approve the nomination.

  Sixty votes was the way it had been until the second term of the Obama presidency, when, in 2013, then–Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) started the Senate down this slippery slope by changing the rules so that any judicial nominee—except for Supreme Court nominations—could be approved by a simple majority vote.

  On Thursday, April 6, 2017, McConnell, faced with the strong possibility of a Schumer-led filibuster, made good on his threat to employ the nuclear option, and the fight was over. The United States Senate was changed, perhaps forever; Neil Gorsuch, the new Supreme Court associate justice as of that date, was not changed, and certainly was not damaged. With all the verbiage stripped away, the Democrats’ essential problem with Gorsuch was that he was not Merrick Garland (which raises the question, did they expect Donald Trump to name a mainstream, middle-of-the-road candidate?), and it was time to move on.

  DURING HIS CONFIRMATION HEARINGS, Gorsuch had been asked many questions, but the ones he refused to answer (à la Ruth Bader Ginsburg) all had to do with how he would vote on important hot-button issues of the day, which meant that the committee, the Court, and the country were left with three vital questions: Who is Neil Gorsuch? What kind of man is he? What can we expect of him as a Supreme Court justice? As Senator Mazie Hirono said to him during the hearings, “We need to know what’s in your heart.”

  In order to learn that, one must look at where he has been.

  Chapter One

  * * *

  A WESTERN CHILDHOOD

  Neil Gorsuch’s Colorado roots are as important to him as any other element of his history. While they may not be the deepest, in that his father’s family originally came from Ohio and his mother’s mother was from Nebraska (Anne, the judge’s mother, was born in Casper, Wyoming, one of seven children), they are still deep. While he was growing up in Denver’s Hilltop neighborhood, all four of his grandparents were alive, and—as he said in his statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee—“I could ride my bike to their homes and they were huge influences.”

  Going back several generations, the judge’s family history on each side contains both doctors and lawyers. His maternal grandfather, Joseph John McGill, was a surgeon, and his father’s father was also a medical doctor. Dr. Gorsuch, who lost his father at age four, grew up to become famously hardworking, putting himself through medical school by driving a Denver streetcar.

  It was, however, Neil’s paternal grandfather who was most deeply connected to, and well-known in, the city of Denver. Born there in 1899, John Gorsuch practiced law in that city until his death in 1987, becoming well liked and well respected. In a 2004 tribute in The Colorado Lawyer magazine, Ben S. Aisenberg, a partner and friend, called John Gorsuch his mentor, partner, friend, and “one of the most down-to-earth individuals you could ever expect to meet. He could relate to people at every level . . . . He also was gregarious, soft-spoken, thoughtful, and humorous [and] so popular and well known in Denver that, during the ’30s, ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s, he could not take a stroll down Seventeenth Street at lunchtime without being stopped every few minutes by fellow attorneys, clients, or friends.”

  According to Aisenberg, John Gorsuch “served in the Armed Services in World War I. He loved to tell the story of being raised to the exalted rank of acting corporal. However, it was not long before he was returned to the rank of private when his First Sergeant informed him that he had not shown the qualities of leadership required of a corporal. John would finish the story with, ‘Nuf said.’ ”

  John Gorsuch, a skilled dispute-settler, was in great demand as an arbitrator of disagreements between management and labor unions. One of his favorite cases, writes Aisenberg, involved unhappy cocktail waitresses who were made to pay for their work wear, which consisted of tiny, revealing outfits and cowboy boots.

  “The casino,” wrote Aisenberg, “took the position that because the waitresses could wear their boots and skimpy outfits anywhere, it shouldn’t have to pay for them. The waitresses maintained that they would not be caught dead in these clothes outside the casino and, therefore, such outfits should be considered uniforms and should be paid for by the casino. It was a three-day hearing, and the union paraded cocktail waitress after cocktail waitress in their revealing outfits to testify before John. He admitted he had difficulty taking notes during some of this testimony and was eternally thankful there was a reporter present who transcribed the proceeding.” (Unfortunately, Aisenberg did not supply the outcome of the case.)

  ALSO PROUD TO CLAIM a connection to the new Supreme Court justice is the tiny city of Leadville, Colorado (pop. 2,602), which bills itself, in contrast to Denver, as “The Two Mile High City” (10,532 feet above sea level). That connection is based on the fact that Neil Gorsuch’s paternal grandfather, as the principal arbitrator for Climax Molybdenum, made many trips to Leadville for hearings, using the Loveland Pass, a high mountain pass—11,990 feet above sea level—in the Rocky Mountains of north-central Colorado, a journey that could be hazardous in the winter.

  As the local newspaper boasted, “[For] those living in Leadville today, Gorsuch’s appointment brings a renewed sense of civic pride that a man being named to the highest court in the land, has a connection to the highest city in [the] land: Leadville, Colorado.”

  AS FOR LAWYERS IN the family, in addition to grandfather John Gorsuch, both Anne and David Gorsuch, Neil’s parents, were attorneys. They met in law school at the University of Colorado and married upon graduating. Only twenty when she finished her legal training, Anne had to wait until her next birthday to be eligible to take the Colorado bar exam; when she passed, she became the youngest person ever to be admitted to the Colorado bar. While they waited, the newlyweds took advantage of her having been awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to travel to Jaipur, India, where Anne studied criminal law.

  Shortly after the president nominated G
orsuch, the Washington Post assigned a small team of reporters (three to report and write the story and two for additional research) to produce an in-depth profile of the nominee. The lengthy and informative article ran on the front page on Sunday, February 19.

  According to the Post, “Gorsuch’s parents . . . raised their three children on the art of verbal sparring.” J. J. Gorsuch, Neil’s younger brother, told the reporters, “When you expose, at an early age, children to the McLaughlin Group, you see people debating using their critical reasoning . . . . You come to the realization that there isn’t just one side or the other that is right. The truth is often in the middle.”

  The Post reported further that “[in] grade school, [Neil] Gorsuch stood out because of this skill at quickly taking positions and backing them up. ‘Other kids were not able to do this,’ said classmate Gina Carbone . . . . He was definitely more mature than the rest of us, better informed and more advanced.’

  “Another classmate, Rob Tengler, said, ‘He wouldn’t offer his opinion unless he was asked, but then he always had a whole lot more to say than the rest of us.’

  “At the small private school Gorsuch attended, Christ the King Roman Catholic School, teachers drilled into their students the values of character, duty and service. While many students brushed off the moral lessons, Gorsuch seemed to internalize them.”

  Apparently, this trait stayed with Neil Gorsuch when he reached Georgetown Prep, the next stage of his education. In a phone interview for this book, Dr. Steven Ochs, who mentored Gorsuch in his senior year when Neil was student government president, recalled, “That year there was a religion teacher who wanted the students to debate Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI’s controversial 1968 encyclical that, among other things, reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s traditional position on the sanctity of life and the prohibition of contraception and abortion.