A Question For Neil Gorsuch—And Every Other Conservative

Bill Clark/Congressional Quarterly/Newscom via ZUMA

Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.


Neil Gorsuch is unlikely to give away anything concrete in his confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, so Ramesh Ponnuru has a list of philosophical concerns for him to address. Here’s question #1:

The Supreme Court in its early decades rarely set aside federal laws. It first did so in 1803, and went another 54 years before doing it again. So at least one of the following three things would seem to be true. Either the federal government now enacts a lot more unconstitutional laws; or the justices gained a better understanding of their jobs as the Founding receded into history; or the Court has seized more and more power from the other branches. Which explanation makes the most sense?

I assume that the “correct” answer is the third one, though Ponnuru doesn’t give away his own opinion. But this is a very salient question. In 2012, conservatives urged the Supreme Court to set aside Obamacare even though:

  • Everybody agreed that health care was a large and indispensable part of interstate commerce. Everybody also agreed that the Constitution grants supreme and extremely broad authority over interstate commerce to the federal government.
  • Obamacare was unquestionably the kind of political issue that’s assigned to Congress and the executive by the Constitution.
  • It was passed properly and signed into law after lengthy deliberation and careful consideration.
  • A string of precedent more than 60 years old suggested Obamacare’s provisions were well within Congress’s commerce and taxing powers.
  • It required people to take certain actions and it levied a penalty for not not following the law, something Congress has done many times before without incident.

The counterargument was literally invented out of whole cloth for the sole purpose of being applied to Obamacare: namely that Congress can penalize actions, but not inactions. Antonin Scalia made this famous as the “broccoli test.” In two centuries, no one had argued this before. The Supreme Court had never breathed so much as a word about this distinction.

But conservatives were eager for the Supreme Court to take this hairsplitting argument and apply it not to a small and modest law as a future warning for lawmakers, but to perhaps the most consequential law enacted in the past half century. No member of Congress could possibly have imagined that this distinction between action and inaction would matter, since liberals and conservatives alike had proposed health care mandates before and no one had suggested it might be a problem.

So I agree with Ponnuru. I would very much like to hear what Gorsuch thinks about how freely the Supreme Court should set aside federal law. Should bigger laws require bigger reasons? Should it matter whether the Supreme Court has provided any guidance before? Should it matter how new and creative the argument is for overturning a law? Should Congress be given more deference in some areas than others? Which ones? Should it matter how big the consequence is of violating a law? These all sound like very interesting questions to me.

THE TRUTH...

is the first thing despots go after. An unwavering commitment to it is probably what draws you to Mother Jones' journalism. And as we're seeing in the US and the world around, authoritarians seek to poison the discourse and the way we relate to each other because they can't stand people coming together around a shared sense of the truth—it's a huge threat to them.

Which is also a pretty great way to describe Mother Jones' mission: People coming together around the truth to hold power accountable.

And right now, we need to raise about $400,000 from our online readers over the next two months to hit our annual goal and make good on that mission. Read more about the information war we find ourselves in and how people-powered, independent reporting can and must rise to the challenge—and please support our team's truth-telling journalism with a donation if you can right now.

payment methods

THE TRUTH...

is the first thing despots go after. An unwavering commitment to it is probably what draws you to Mother Jones' journalism. And as we're seeing in the US and the world around, authoritarians seek to poison the discourse and the way we relate to each other because they can't stand people coming together around a shared sense of the truth—it's a huge threat to them.

Which is also a pretty great way to describe Mother Jones' mission: People coming together around the truth to hold power accountable.

And right now, we need to raise about $400,000 from our online readers over the next two months to hit our annual goal and make good on that mission. Read more about the information war we find ourselves in and how people-powered, independent reporting can and must rise to the challenge—and please support our team's truth-telling journalism with a donation if you can right now.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate