While I do not agree with most of the decisions he has made based on what I have read I think I actually agree with recent Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch’s interpretive philosophy.
I agree with his belief that the executive and legislative branches of government (in Canada and the US) have been too cowardly to press for certain laws and have forced such decisions on the judicial branch – where such decisions do not belong.
Politicians make law, the judiciary enforces and interprets the law.
I agree with this statement he made in 2005:
“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—not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best.”
This does not mean I agree with rampant and extreme conservativism. I do not. It means I think the judiciary should strive toward impartiality rather than activism and elected officials should have the courage to put their names on laws that reflect the needs of the populace regardless of what it does for their re-election chances.
At his nomination ceremony Gorsuch said “A judge who reaches every outcome he wishes is likely a very bad judge“.