While the Supreme Court is on recess for the summer, Justice Neil Gorsuch released his new book, Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law, on Aug. 6. On the same day, Rep. Nancy Pelosi ’s (D-CA) The Art of Power saw publication as well. The simultaneous release is just a coincidence, but both books touch on similar themes. Namely, how do Gorsuch and Pelosi represent their own interests and their larger organizations, and what is the public urged to conclude as a result?
Gorsuch joined the court’s majority opinion on Trump v. United States, the case that seemed to glue President Joe Biden’s sights on court reform, and he has since been consistent in his limited, though pointed, defense of the court as-is. Over Ruled , his most recent book, examines an adjacent topic: over-legislation and the impact it has had on both the public and the governmental system itself.
Although it does not mention them specifically, Over Ruled offers insight into how Gorsuch might view Biden’s recent Supreme Court reform proposals. Say it is the case that we over-legislate and that the court, in turn, has too much power given the sheer number of decisions it makes. Further restricting the Supreme Court would not do anything to lessen tension surrounding it, nor to declutter public perception of it. Rather, a hypothetical wherein decreased legislation is taken in hand might do more to alleviate the sense that the court is over-powerful, if only because it has fewer things to adjudicate. Gorsuch has the good of the people in mind when he stresses the importance of an independent judiciary : If, to some degree, this over-legislation is descriptive of the present state, a counter to court reform on the basis of protecting it from politicization is all the more pertinent.
It is interesting to play the same game with Pelosi. The Art of Power is, fittingly, on the memoir side of things. It covers Pelosi’s years in the House, focusing on the acute power she obtained and how she maintained it as House speaker.
To be the “most powerful woman in American political history” is a claim not of threat but of esteem, in Pelosi’s world. The fulcrum of her self-assessment is a notion of power (see also her book of advice, Know Your Power , from 2008), and it is her perspective on the primacy of power that determines how combative or congratulatory a posture to adopt. Toward the court, Pelosi has not been shy with her critique that it has “gone rogue.” Contrast that with the happy success Pelosi has seen in leading the Democratic Party in an utterly undemocratic candidate switch. If the court is in as rough shape as the Democrats make it out to be, Pelosi betrays that her motivation is not the protection of the people but the concentration of power that has defined her career.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
All of this expansion on the personal opinions of Gorsuch and Pelosi is of little import if one has no particular interest in the figures themselves — any intriguing implications come by mapping them onto their institutions. As prominent members of their respective schools, it is not too much of a reach to consider how representative each might be of Congress or the court.
Whether or not one agrees with Gorsuch, it is easy to see that he speaks in earnest. As does Pelosi, independent of intellectual honesty. This is not to say one is bound to be defined by all of his individual projects or condemned to conceit for a memoir. But it is worth giving a thought to what public persona communicates about the problems that plague us. To take each at their word is what they ask in writing books. To grant them as much is only fair and discerning readership.
Most Popular
Comments / 0