BOOKS | OVER RULED: Restoring the Rull of Law | Neil Gorsuch, Harper, (2024), 304p.
In Over Ruled Neil Gorsuch issues a blistering indictment of the modern American judiciary, offering a clarion call for a return to what he sees as the proper guardianship of the Constitution: the rule of law, as intended by the Founders. He takes no prisoners in his critique of judicial activism, branding it as an intellectual coup against the very framework of democracy. The courts, he argues, have not merely overreached but have actively subverted the principles they were meant to uphold.
Gorsuch’s central thesis is disarmingly simple yet provocative in its implications: judges are not lawmakers. It’s a bold reminder, as evident as it is necessary in an age where courts seem increasingly willing to legislate from the bench, distorting both the law and the democratic process in the name of their subjective visions of justice. In response, Gorsuch offers a steadfast defense of originalism—the idea that the Constitution and laws must be interpreted based on their meanings when drafted. He argues with a ferocity tempered only by legal precision; this is the only safeguard against the arbitrary power of judges who seem to have forgotten their place.
The prose itself is unapologetically direct. Gorsuch does not mince words as he dismantles the legal doctrines that, in his view, have done so much damage. Chief among these is the Chevron doctrine, the notorious legal principle that allows federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws as they see fit. In Gorsuch’s estimation, this doctrine hands the reins of power to unelected bureaucrats, empowering a shadow government that, though unaccountable, wields outsized influence over the lives of citizens. The system, he contends, is broken, and the judiciary has allowed this dysfunction to flourish.
Along the way, the Article I branch of government - the rule-makers - that is, Congress, is indicated for its sloppy and unclear articulations and legislative habits. Anyone who reads a paper knows he is not wrong.
Where Over Ruledtruly excels is in its ability to make arcane legal debates not only accessible but urgent. Gorsuch’s legal acumen is fully displayed, but a palpable sense of moral indignation is simmering beneath the surface. He is not content to diagnose the illness—he wants to cure it quickly. His writing bristles with the conviction that every deviation from the Constitution’s original meaning erodes the liberties it was designed to protect. For Gorsuch, the stakes could not be higher: allowing judges to read their preferences into the law is tantamount to giving up on the rule of law altogether.
Of course, one could argue that Gorsuch’s views are almost too tidy in their ideological neatness. Originalism, after all, is not without its critics, and Gorsuch’s vision of the judiciary often glosses over the complexities and nuances of a society that has evolved significantly since the 18th century. One might reasonably ask if a document written in the age of muskets and powdered wigs can fully address the moral and legal dilemmas of the 21st century. Gorsuch would likely counter that the Constitution’s brilliance lies in its enduring principles, not in its adaptability to the whims of modern judges—but even his most devoted readers may wonder if this rigidity might sometimes come at a cost.
Nevertheless, Over Ruled remains a forceful argument, an unflinching critique of a judiciary that Gorsuch views as having lost its way. His insistence on judicial restraint is, at its core, a defense of democratic accountability. It is not the role of judges to dictate policy or invent new rights; that power belongs to the people and their elected representatives. Gorsuch’s polemic is rooted in this fundamental belief, and he is relentlessly pursuing it.
This is not a book for the faint-hearted or the complacent. Gorsuch’s arguments demand engagement, and his intellectual rigor leaves little room for easy dismissal. Whether you agree with him or not, Over Ruled will shake your faith in the status quo and force you to reckon with the implications of a judiciary untethered from its constitutional moorings. It is, in short, a call to arms against the creeping judicial tyranny that Gorsuch so fiercely opposes. It’s a fight he believes is necessary—and one that he makes damn hard to ignore.
OUTLINE:
Introduction: The Case for Judicial Restraint
The book aims to argue for a return to judicial restraint and restore the rule of law.
Gorsuch’s central thesis: the judiciary’s role is to interpret the law, not create it.
Definition and importance of originalism and textualism in maintaining constitutional integrity.
Part I: The Rise of Judicial Activism
Historical Context
Examination of critical moments in American judicial history.
The shift from strict constitutional interpretation to more expansive judicial decision-making.
What Is Judicial Activism?
Judicial activism is when courts overstep their bounds by making laws or policy decisions.
Discussion of landmark cases where the courts have overreached their authority in Gorsuch’s view.
Examples include Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, and other controversial rulings.
The Impact on Democracy
How judicial activism undermines democratic principles.
The problem of unelected judges making decisions that should be left to the legislature.
Consequences for the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Part II: The Rule of Law
Defining the Rule of Law
Gorsuch’s concept of the rule of law is a system in which laws, not personal preferences, govern.
How judicial overreach erodes trust in the legal system
Textualism and Originalism
Explanation of textualism: interpreting legal texts based on their plain meaning.
Originalism: interpreting the Constitution as it was understood at the time of its drafting.
Why are these interpretative methods essential for maintaining the rule of law?
The Dangers of Judicial Discretion
There are risks of allowing judges too much latitude in interpreting laws.
Case studies illustrate the negative impact of judicial discretion on legal consistency and fairness.
Part III: Administrative Overreach and the Chevron Doctrine
What Is the Chevron Doctrine?
Explanation of the Chevron doctrine allows federal agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes.
How this doctrine grants excessive power to unelected bureaucrats.
Gorsuch’s Critique of Chevron
Why Gorsuch believes the Chevron doctrine violates the separation of powers.
Case examples where Chevron has led to federal overreach.
Gorsuch argues that courts should not defer to agencies when interpreting the law.
The Consequences of Administrative Overreach
The broader implications for citizens, as government agencies gain more control over aspects of life.
How administrative overreach diminishes individual freedoms and accountability.
Part IV: Restoring the Balance
The Role of the Courts in a Constitutional Democracy
Gorsuch believes the proper role of judges should be interpreting, not making, laws.
Legal predictability and consistency are essential for ensuring fairness and liberty.
Restoring the Rule of Law
Gorsuch’s roadmap for judicial reform.
There is a need to return to strict textualism and originalism in court rulings.
Suggestions for how lawmakers and the public can reinforce judicial restraint.
The Path Forward
Gorsuch envisions a restored judiciary, faithful to the Constitution’s original meaning.
Final reflections on preserving the rule of law for future generations.
Conclusion: A Call to Action
Summary of the critical arguments made throughout the book.
Gorsuch’s plea for the judiciary and the public to reaffirm their commitment to the rule of law.
Emphasis on the stakes: the preservation of liberty and democratic accountability.
Snag your copy of Over Ruled here.