Trump, Trump and more Trump. Lately, it seems as though he is all that is spoken of in the news. However, evidently, this is probably for a good reason; Trump continues to make unprecedented, potentially unconstitutional decisions that will greatly affect our nation. One of his latest newsworthy choices was his announcement that his nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States is Neil Gorsuch. While many say that Gorsuch is a qualified prospect with all the right credentials, there is one quality about him that is quite important to know about: Neil Gorsuch is known as a “textualist”— and that may not be a good thing.
What exactly does being a textualist mean? A textualist, within politics, is someone that abides strictly to the actual words written in law, which becomes important when interpreting the constitution. To back up this claim is a quote from Gorsuch himself, who said in one of his speeches that, “Judges should instead strive, if humanly and so imperfectly, to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be,” (Case Western Reserve University). While to some, this may sound good, a Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) member being a textualist could cause more harm than it can cause good.
Our new SCOTUS sticking to old ideologies may not be the best thing for our nation. Society is constantly changing and evolving, so it would be difficult to expect all of the intentions of the Constitution, which was created 230 years ago, to still apply. There is no way that the Framers would know what our nation would be like today, and so being committed to the documents’ original meaning could potentially set our nation back, rather than progressing forward.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution is a perfect example of how textualism can be quite detrimental. This Amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, which is extremely broad. If it is construed exactly as it was written, one could infer that any person could have any weapon. However, is this ill-defined written meaning of this Amendment safe for our nation today? When the Framers of the Constitution first created this Amendment, they did not know how some people today would take advantage of such an amendment, or how much weapons would evolve over time. Guns are more dangerous now than they were in the 1700’s, which is why stricter gun laws are needed for our nation’s safety. It is easy to believe that if the Framers knew how America would change and advance, they would have been much clearer while writing the Constitution.
A textualist SCOTUS Justice could especially affect progression in regards to women’s rights or LGBT rights. When the Constitution was first written (by 55 white men), women’s rights were not a priority whatsoever. We need support from the SCOTUS concerning women’s rights and equality for all, which may be difficult to receive from someone who is so committed to the original meaning of the Constitution. Gorsuch has been known in the past to work against Planned Parenthood, which is another red flag. Silence can often speak louder than words, and the fact that Gorsuch has yet to state his definite views on LGBT rights should worry those who are a part of that community. Not only that, but although the LGBT community’s fight for equal rights is another topic that was not deemed important by the Framers during the creation of the Constitution. This could lead Gorsuch to later show that he himself does not care about these rights.
The SCOTUS’ function is to interpret all of our laws and statutes at many different levels. If Gorsuch is selected and continues to understand the Constitution as it was written over 200 years ago, it will be much easier to overlook and ignore faults within our system. The Framers created our Constitution with the intentions of a changing nation, which would imply that our nation would advance alongside the laws within our nation- textualism will allow people to comprehend laws much differently than they should be in today’s society. Neil Gorsuch’s textualist ideologies are not going to go away, and while the Framers’ basic ideas and beliefs may still be relevant today, interpreting the text of the Constitution exactly as it was written today would contradict the very document they sought to create: one granting rights and freedoms to all of America’s people.