Back to blog

Two questions senators should ask Neil Gorsuch about natural law

See blog

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.


And what kind of questions are GOP Senators asking? What possible relevance is there in a question like "Where is you favorite fishing spot?" The GOP is busy yukking it up over how they get to put this guy on the court while they refused to even consider President Obama's nominee.


So explain to me again how the following ideas are a threat to our democracy: human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong, that there is a moral imperative to respect basic goods, that we should honor people out of respect for their innate value, that treating human life as inviolable is the premise of our entire political system, and that both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution reflect the founders belief in self evident human rights and truths.
If the idea that every human life has innate dignity and value in itself is not "self evident" but rather granted by the state, then we are all in trouble. Do we really want the state to determine which life has value and which does not?


So explain to be again how the following ideas are a threat to our democracy: human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong, that there is a moral imperative to respect basic goods, that we should honor people out of respect for their innate value, that treating human life as inviolable is the premise of our entire political system, and that both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution reflect the founders belief in self evident human rights and truths.

If the idea that every human life has innate dignity and value in itself is not "self evident" but rather granted by the state, then we are all in trouble. Do we really want the state to determine which life has value and which does not?

Jack Everett

Scalia was anti constitution like all republicans and Trump's pick is no different. These people Trump has picked to run his departments are nothing nut corporate thieves looking for nothing but their own interets. They have lied to get vetted and now the supreme court nominee is lying about having meetings about abortion. The democrats need to start showing some guts and take on these fascist pigs.


After reading the comments, I am convinced that most people have no clue what is actually meant by "natural law". It is a pity that the classics are not taught in American schools anymore.
The notion of natural law is both ancient and widespread, and in fact is part of the founding of the United States and its legal principles. If anyone has read the Declaration of Independence, and agreed with the sentence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, then you are agreeing with a statement of natural law.
The concept of “natural law” is not inherently a Christian (or even religious) concept. The idea pre-dates Christianity by several centuries.
In his Nicomachean Ethics 5.7. Aristotle distinguishes between natural (phusikon) and legal or conventional (nomikon) justice within the sphere of political justice as a whole, and he objected to those who treat the whole of political justice as merely legal or conventional. According to Aristotle, the content of “natural” justice (or sometimes referred to as “universal law”) is set by nature, which renders it immutable and valid in all communities. In contrast, “conventional” justice comprises rules devised by individual communities to serve their needs. Aristotle argued that “conventional justice” is subject to change by human beings, and is therefore subordinate to “natural justice”.
For the Roman philosopher and politician Cicero (a proponent of stoicism), “natural” or “true” law was based on “right reason in agreement with nature” ("true law" is equivalent to Aristotle's "universal law"). Cicero proposed that True Law applied across all communities and he identified God as both the law-maker and law-enforcer.
Thomas Aquinas expanded on these notions in his Summa Theologica. He subdivided “law” into four concepts: lex aeterna (eternal law), lex divina (divine law), lex naturalis (natural law), and lex humana (human law). For Aquinas, there was an equivalence between lex naturalis and lex aeterna – he postulated that human beings, at least in part, do not make law but rather discover it and appropriate it for themselves. In other words, “natural law” is the process of humans discovering the “eternal law” that already exists and is universal. This is analogous to Aristotle’s explanation of “natural justice”. Lex humana, in contrast, is much more banal and ministerial – it is human beings setting up an ordered regulatory state, but those laws may or may not comport with lex naturalis or lex aeterna (for example, a speed limit that is set at 35 MPH is not an aspect of natural law, but is merely a legal convention to regulate behavior in a predictable way). This is analogous to Aristotle’s explanation of “conventional justice”.
Thus, for philosophers like Aristotle, Cicero, and Aquinas, true law/universal law/natural law/eternal law exists independently of humans, and can only be discovered and appropriated by humans (at least, any human with a properly functioning intellect and a modicum of experience in the world).

HopefulObserver in reply to LexHumana

Yes, the ancient Greeks and Roman Empire philosophers may have believed in "natural law" but it was debunked in English law long before the US was founded and deliberately omitted as a source of law for the US Constitution.
The Bill of Rights is not based in "natural law"', its based in the language of the Bill or Rights being drafted and ratified by human beings. There is no source of law but that made by human beings allowed in the US Constitution because of the Anti-Establishment Clause prohibition on establishment of religion.
The Constitution is the governing document of the United States not the Declaration of Independence. See the Supremacy Clause. There are framers, such as John Dickinson, who refused to sign the Dec because of this issue. Trying to impose the Dec as law is a legal fallacy known as "Declarationism". You'll flunk out of law school if you try to say that!

LexHumana in reply to HopefulObserver

I've already long since graduated from law school (cum laude), so I will take your analysis of the law and debunk it as I see fit. Your understanding of English law is grossly flawed -- the majority of English jurisprudence at the time of the founding of the United States was (and actually still is) common law. This common law relied heavily on the idea of natural law, as opposed to statutory pronouncements. The very notion of a court of equity is almost exclusively premised on the idea of natural law (i.e. that there is something inherently fair and equitable that can be used as a benchmark for decision-making).

Your assertion that there is no room for natural law in the Constitution because of the existence of the Establishment Clause is fundamentally flawed, because natural law is not inherently religious (you may disagree, but the notion of a pre-existing natural state of fairness or justice does not require the existence of a deity or organized religion). The Bill of Rights also did not create the exclusive rights that citizens enjoy, contrary to your assertion: the fact that the 9th Amendment specifically states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" makes it clear that there are rights the people possess that are NOT granted to them by the government.

Finally, the Declaration of Independence is listed in Title 1 of the U.S. Code as part of the "organic laws of the United States". It is not a statute itself, but is retained as a foundation principle to help explain how the rest of our statutes historically evolved and should be understood. Thus, the Framers of the Constitution and the First Congress understood that natural law principles were being relied upon as founding principles that the rest of our laws are built upon. If you bother to do your legal research, you will find the Declaration cited frequently in judicial opinions, not as controlling law, but as guiding context. For example, the recent Supreme Court decision in Ariz. State Legis. v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n, 135 S. Ct. 2652 (2015) cites to the Declaration and to John Locke. Hundreds of other federal cases can be found easily if you bother to look. See, e.g., Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011).

HopefulObserver in reply to LexHumana

The renaming of the Anti-Establishment Clause into the Establishment Clause has happened because of immigrant populations, like Scalia and Gorsuch, who go to law school and think they then know everything about Anglo-US constitutional law history.
Common law is is not recognized in the Constitution, again deliberately. It varied widely within Britain, much less the US.
This was all debunked centuries ago. What law school did you go to? It seems they didn't teach you correctly.

LexHumana in reply to HopefulObserver

"Common law is is not recognized in the Constitution"

It certainly is. Every state in the Union has a body of common law that governs its proceedings, and federal courts not only recognize it, they will enforce it if a case in diversity comes before them to adjudicate. Also, if you do a quick Lexis search for "federal common law" just in federal court cases, you will come up with thousands of results -- there is an extensive body of "federal common law" used in the federal judiciary. For example, see Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petro. Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) (discussing federal common law claims), and Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 566 U.S. 449 (2012) (same). See also, Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011).

I observe that your comments have a lot of conclusory "legal" pronouncements, but very little citation in support of them.

ashbird in reply to LexHumana

Re your Mar 22nd, 15:06 comment and the rest, very very nice. Thank you for taking the time to write and post the material.
I thought the seminal work of Socrates should be added to the list of Greek philosophers in discussing the subject of Natural Law (Aristotle was Plato's prized student and Plato was Socrates' prized student; while Aristotle disagreed with Plato on some points as teacher and student, the intellectual lineage is unmistakable) -
Always enjoy your posts. Totally under-appreciated and underrecommended.
Also, if you have time, take a look at Gorsuch's Dissertation at Oxford. The bibliogpahy is extensitve and impressive. As a lawyer and someone who also wrote a doctoral dissertation, I'd like to think I have a good eye for work that is carefully construed. Again, thanks for your posts.

LexHumana in reply to ashbird

It is difficult to attribute ideas to Socrates, given that he himself never wrote anything. Plato was the recorder of Socrates' thought, but what ideas are Socratic versus Platonic is often guesswork. It is clear that Plato had a transcendent view of both ontology and epistemology, given that everything we could perceive or even think about was (he believed) merely an aspect or reflection of eternal forms. However, it is not hard to believe that Socrates had reflections on what we would refer to today as "natural law". Even among the surviving fragments of the pre-Socratics, it is clear that the nature of being and the nature of knowledge were extensively debated. The debate between law/custom (nomos) and nature (phusis) was a central theme of philosophical and sophistic thought in ancient Greece. To what degree is law natural? Is morality simply law and custom, or is it natural? These were the initial seeds of the ongoing discussion in philosophy as to whether virtues like justice are purely relative or somehow more transcendent. The Enlightenment, however beneficial in other ways, really marked the start of the deterioration of philosophy, as so-called "realists" and "empiricists" attempted to conclusively explain the nature of essence solely via empirical observations of existence. This eventually lead to philosophers like Heidegger and Sartre to flip the notion of being from essence preceding existence, to existence preceding essence. Thankfully, these schools of philosophy eventually undermined themselves (Heidegger backtracked on his own philosophy, Wittgenstein eventually accused all of philosophy as merely being word games, etc.). Sartre stuck by his views to the bitter end, but thankfully existentialism has effectively died out as a philosophy in its most extreme forms, although it still pops up randomly from time to time in various guises.

Swiss Reader

How can we justify the universality of human rights without some recourse on natural law? Uncritical, positivist acceptance of any and all laws passed by politicians can have evil consequences. That's what during Nazi times led apolitical jurists (including some perfectly decent persons) to apply the Nuremberg laws and other monstrosities.
It's not a bad thing to have a justice who believes in human rights. If that means in the end that some fundamental decisions about abortion and other matters have to be taken by the legislative, well that's their job, isn't it?

HopefulObserver in reply to Swiss Reader

There are tools such as proposing reform of laws, proposing new laws, and engaging in civil disobedience to object to extant laws.
When a judge claims a source of law other than that of human beings, i.e., asserting natural law, this the very definition of violating human rights.

Swiss Reader in reply to HopefulObserver

HopefulObserver, you mention approvingly the use of civil disobedience. Now when exactly do you think that civil disobedience would be justified? You can't allow anybody to disobey the law just on a whim; otherwise it wouldn't be a law anymore. There must be some rules to specify under what circumstances certain laws could or should be disregarded. So, since you accept engaging in civil disobedience in certain cases, you have already accepted the existence of some rules beyond the positive law. In other words, you too seem to believe in natural law.

ocon2429 in reply to Swiss Reader

Fundamentally, at least in the US, the Legislative Branch of the government has to make ALL fundamental decisions and then enact them as laws. The Supreme Court is there to opine on whether or not those laws are Constitutional. If they don't pass muster the Legislative Branch has the right and duty to reconsider them and rewrite the laws until the do pass Constitutional muster.


The question I would like to see asked is, How many humans have to exist for natural law to exist? If the answer is 1 or more, then it is human law, since nature has existed and will continue to exist without humanity. The solution to the arrogant view that a life is not exclusively held by the person living that life, is the proliferation of judge and legislator accompanied suicides. Especially those who can support capitol punishment. Killing yourself alone is wrong, but killing someone else as a group activity is not wrong. Too bad cognitive dissonance isn't fatal.

LexHumana in reply to FlownOver

Natural law (in the sense of a philosophical principle of justice) exists independently of humans. Human beings can discover it, but it is not dependent on humans. In this sense, natural law (in the justice sense) can be viewed similarly to the laws of physics -- gravity exists whether humans know about it or not. See my comment above regarding the definition of natural law.

LexHumana in reply to FlownOver

"the arrogant view that a life is not exclusively held by the person living that life"

This is not an arrogant view at all. Concepts of rights and justice and equity have historically been viewed as both individual AND communal, going back to the ancient Greeks and forward into the Enlightenment. The rights of the individual had traditionally been viewed as co-relative with the rights of others in the community. The atomistic reduction of the evaluation of rights as being exclusively individual is a very modern phenomenon, probably exemplified most starkly by philosophers like Jean Paul Sartre.

ashbird in reply to LexHumana

The scope of the discussion on the subject of Natural Law is so vast even a minimally responsible coverage in breadth and depth is an impossibility in a cyberspace blog in the nature of DiA of a publication such as TE and its corresponding readership. I would like to merely mention here the inclusion of *Phenomenology* in Sartre's philosophical thought, the spokesperson of which is, of course, Satre himself. [Compare and contrast Emmanuel Kant's fundamental ideas on this]. Again, I refrain from going into any details for lack of time, and even had I the time and I did my best, my best would not be anywhere near 10% sufficient on the subject. In class time, it is 2 semesters class hours to cover what needs to be covered. And people spend a whole life time (assuming a life-span of 100 years, such as Bertrand Russell's - 2 yrs short ) developing the "right" Q's, let alone reaching the "right" A's, except the only one that, IMHO, is good enough: "Nobody knows everything." An interesting anecdote about Sartre - he was arrested for disorderly conduct once while participating in a protest march. De Gaulle personally pardoned him, saying, "You don't arrest Voltaire". Some directly relevant works o fhis on the subject of Ethics: Search for a Method (1957), Critique of Dialectial Reason (1960), Notebooks for an Ethics (1983), Truth and Existence (1989) . Sartre died in 1980. Works subsequent to that date are postumous.

A. Andros

The Economist has reservations about a possible justice who believes that human life is inherently valuable.

This tells us more about TE's current editorial staff than it does about Judge Gorsuch.

A. Andros in reply to Tokarian

Yeah . . . Fifty Shades of Gray. That DOES sum-up TE.
If life is not "inherently valuable" then all the Nazis did with the Jews is waste a good work force.
If life is not "inherently valuable" then Pol Pot just had some flawed economic theories.
The Nazis parsed life -- the tens of thousands of retarded children they "euthanized" were referred to as "life unworthy of life" or, even, "useless eaters.
The evil always believe that they are just more "sophisticated" on moral questions.

MsBRuxksbE in reply to A. Andros

"You have an odd sense of humor..."
Opinions vary, but none are wrong.
"...Most people don't think the Nazis or the Khemer Rouge were such laugh-riots..."
You could be right. I haven't seen the polls on this lately.
"...But, there is no accounting for taste..."
An oldie, but a goody.
At least you didn't spout any bogus statistics this time around. Good on you!

WT Economist

Members of Congress need only ask themselves one question. What are the odds that THIS GUY would nominate someone better, rather than someone worse, if Gorsuch is not approved? That's where we are at now.

Two months down, 46 to go, and just 22 until a new Congress. And Pence or Cruz would be worse. And no, I'm not a Democrat.


Gorsuch would clearly be predetermined in many of his individual judgements. That alone questions his value in the very special role of Supreme Court member.


I have a feeling the author of this commentary misunderstands Mr Gorsuch's position. When Mr Gorsuch says that "personal views...have nothing to do with the case before me in any case" he means to say that natural law is something that exists objectively. In line with this view, individuals do not have the right to end their lives, because objective natural law and not personal views should determine whether one has a right to end one's life or not.

It is important to realise there is a difference between a person who adheres to immutable natural laws (e.g. God) and one who follows the Enlightenment precept of man-made laws that may be changed as society changes. Left unmentioned, such different approaches may lead to misunderstandings. Religion, in my view, does play a role in Mr Gorsuch's thought. Calling it natural law is only a useful cover. Divine law would rather be the name, an approach not unlike the Islamic Sharia.

jsmgd in reply to Pericles97

Natural law has noting to do, or should not, when judging a case. All cases must be judged according to the letter of the law. If a case is about the constitutionality of a law the constitution only is the only standard by which the case must be analysed. If the constitution is not violated then the judgment must be as simple as it is not illegal. And right, the nine supreme court judges have no basis to claim that they can use moral grounds in a better way than any other citizen. Therefore, the liberal judges have no basis for going beyond the letter of the law. It plays both ways. Hope you agree.

Pericles97 in reply to jsmgd

In the main, I do agree. But not all solutions are covered by the Constitution. There is always room for a personal choice. The Constitution does not stipulate who owns life, does it? There is a grey area where beliefs do play a role. I was merely pointing to Mr Gorsuch's approach towards that area. I felt the author did not do that justice.

Aurelius512 in reply to Pericles97

Your second paragraph is wholly false. Stoic philosophers originated the concept of natural law long before the advent of Christianity and centuries before Islam. The Catholic Church has for at least seven centuries -- since Thomas Aquinas -- differentiated between natural and divine law. Enlightenment philosophers developed natural law theories on a purely secular basis. No natural law theorist has ever denied the indispensability of positive (man-made) law for governing a state.

jsmgd in reply to Pericles97

You write: '' There is a grey area where beliefs do play a role'', meaning that sometimes the justices have a ground for using their beliefs in the analysis on which they base their rulings. My view is that beliefs are personal, that they can be analysed and that their value can be debated ad nauseam. This is exactly what it is done by the politicians in modern democracies - and, may be, it is why so many have more and more frequently an outbreak of nausea watching the political life in their country.

The beliefs are, through the democratic processes, made into laws and regulations. It is basic and fundamental to understand and recognize: that the laws of the land reflect the beliefs of the people, that this is the sole responsibility of the politicians, the legislator, to make and remake the laws that reflect these beliefs change and as they see appropriate. The Supreme Court justices, or any justice, have to put aside their beliefs because, again, the beliefs of the people are incorporated in the laws and the laws their offspring. The letter of the laws is what the justices have to deal with, nothing else. There are no ground onto which one can establish the right to speculate on what the legislator wanted to say; it must be assumed that what has been said by the legislator is what was intended to be said. Much less is there a ground that justify the analysis of a case based, even partly, on what, so far, the legislator has remained silent and speculate about what it would have said if it had not remained silent, by intention or otherwise.

In believing otherwise one would replace the separation of powers principle by the overlapping of powers; by definition separation precludes overlapping.

Martin Hughes

Maybe naturalism and originalism do not go together so well. If there is a law written naturally in all our hearts which ought to influence our understanding of positive laws, written in texts, it is to be expected that the increase in discussion, seeing that reason is also bestowed on us by nature and is expressed in thought and speech, will over time make our understanding of the natural law itself more explicit - as will happen with other expressions of reason, such as mathematics. This means that our understanding of the positive law ought to respond to our increasing natural lawfulness, so the original meaning of the positive law should indeed give way.

bharati k

“Human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable”.
This means NO MORE WAR? Reparations for lives destroyed or maimed in Vietnam, Iran, Iraq to Nicaragua and other countries and for destroying their culture or stealing their property?
E.g. No covert gifts to Pakistan of India-specific arms? Or using Pakistan as a battering ram against India to further US policies, killing people on both sides?
This means equality and reparation for black lives, Native American lives, etc. etc.?
Cheap or free contraception will be easily available to all to avoid abortions?
Do it America, please aim to be idealists. The world's eyes are weary from wars. Our world is lonely and rough without idealists.
Also no respect for animal lives? Ours to dominate and use as per Biblical religious instruction? Ours to make them bleed slowly to death, traumatized because some religion told us to? To use in awful, unnecessary experiments?
If Mr Gorsuch truly respects human lives and animal lives, we will be truly happy.
The ideal of no more war is long, long overdue.

TheBowski in reply to JKPbody64

And no room for self-defense either. I'd be interested to know how he justifies people killing others in the name of the government, and whether this natural law applies to people outside of the United States, and what role the United States has in extending "natural law"/"human rights" to non-citizens and outside the borders.

cs r

Suddenly S.M. is all worried whether a nominated justice is a faithful originalist. His beloved Living Constitution, make-stuff-up-as-you-go-along jurisprudence doesn't look so good to S.M. if conservative justices do it. What a hypocrite.


Since J. Gorsuch is being touted as a conservative successor-in-interest to the originalist chair on the Court once held by J. Scalia, where J. Scalia was supposedly not at all fond of injecting his personal philosophy into his decisions, it's worth noting, then, how desperately hypocritical and disingenuous J. Scalia was, in fact, about such things. His dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (US 2003), the case which definitively put paid to the criminalization of private sexual relations, including homosexuality and bisexuality, in America, is instructive.

J. Scalia wrote: "I turn now to the ground on which the Court squarely rests its holding: the contention that there is no rational basis for the law here under attack. This proposition is so out of accord with our jurisprudence — indeed, with the jurisprudence of any society we know — that it requires little discussion.

The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are “immoral and unacceptable,” — the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers [v. Hardwick, US 1986, rev'd in Lawrence] held that this was a legitimate state interest. [sic, criminalizing homosexuality.] The Court today reaches the opposite conclusion. The Texas statute, it says, “furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual”. The Court embraces instead Justice Stevens’ declaration in his Bowers dissent, that “the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.” This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review."

It is well-known that J. Scalia was a life-long conservative Catholic, who deeply disrespected the LGBT community in the US. He permitted his private homophobia REGULARLY to influence his judicial decisions, particularly, where these went to the rights of "sexual minorities".

The problem for all originalists is that the words used by the Founding Fathers to write the Constitution do not always mean the same thing, today, as they did, then, some 220 years ago. And the context in which those words were used, then, has been revolutionized in the interim. Modern society is so very different than what obtained when George Washington entered office that the Founders would scarcely have recognized it, today. In order, then, to apply the principles encapsulated in the Constitution to the modern context, the Court must go beyond the mere text of the Constitution, particularly where the Founders had not anticipated the full breadth and extent to which those constitutional principles might apply.

As an example, during the oral argument in US v. Windsor (2013), J. Scalia asked the US Solicitor General when it was that the US Constitution could first be read to ensure "the right to be homosexual". This textualism framed the question before the Court then, as in 1986, in the wrong terms. The Majority held in Lawrence and again in Windsor that the proper framing of the question was whether the Government had had the power to discriminate between and among the People based on this most deeply personal, intimate, immutable and defining characteristic -- one's sexual orientation -- whether in regulating their private sexual conduct (Lawrence) or in determining how to impose federal estate taxes on them (Windsor).

The Court determined, based on its reading of the US 5th and 14th Amendments, that the Government simply had no interest, whatsoever, in using sexual orientation for such purposes. Not only was there no "clear and compelling" interest, nor any "important and substantial" interest, there was simply NO LEGITIMATE INTEREST, AT ALL. Hence, no rational basis for the law.

J. Scalia was so aghast at this outcome, being so contrary to his private moral worldview, that he completely dismissed even having to address it. In truth, originalism is very much bound up with the desire on the part of religious conservatives to justify a return to the ante-bellum period, when the US Federal Government was very weak, when WASPy men of property and means dominated everyone else, and when the rich could abuse the rest, often holding them in slavery or indentured servitude, justifying this outcome as founded on "natural law" and "God's law".

Such advocates of "natural law" are invariably self-serving hypocrites. The Government has no business inculcating or enforcing "morality" on anyone, but only in legislating a code of conduct which maximizes the utility of society for the greater good of all.


Mr. Gorsuch uses originalism as a basis for support of natural law? Isn't this the same Constitution that supported slavery?


“Human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable”.

I need help in understanding this principle?
How has the scholar reach this conclusion? What tells us that this is so? Why? Is human life fundamental to the existence of nature? Could nature survive without the existence of man? Would nature be disadvantaged by the extermination of man? I cannot see how life can be inherently valuable. What makes it valuable?

I am often told "it is the right thing to do" but no-one is able to explain the reasoning as to why it should be so. Should I blindly believe in such opinions?

Apart from God, am I missing something here?

Noijmiw in reply to homocidalmaniac

I was thinking exactly the same thing. The basic hypothesis of "natural law" is already wrong (well to be fair: not based on either logic laws or the scientific method), so why would anyone accept any conclusion of this theory? It seems to me this is a typical case of an invented theory based on flawed bases created to support a preconceived worldview.

TheBowski in reply to Noijmiw

I think neither pure science nor pure logic can provide a moral basis for action. Empathy is required, as is asserting that all people deserve equal treatment before the law. Natural laws and absolute morality may not be logically satisfying, but they provide a basis upon which to build to a system of morality that is otherwise lacking. Morality and justice are human creations not based upon physical laws and will not be able to satisfy your desire for rigorous structure and universal applicability.

homocidalmaniac in reply to D Scott

"By my logic". Firstly, I cannot understand the similarity between my post and letting Syrians die? My first question was nothing else but an attempt to understand the logic of my opening statement, as written by the author. How you managed to arrive at such a conclusion begs me to think a certain paranoid delusional state may exist?
With respect to Syrians, I wish that the floodgates of immigration be opened to allow the weak, the elderly, the children and the oppressed to be welcomed into Western Europe. I hope Trump will allow all illegal immigrants to remain in the country. They are only claiming back that which was taken from them. Restrictions on immigration is a crime against humanity.
Therefore, before you ascribe your logic as mine, maybe you should examine your prejudices, which I can only ascribe to you being from America i.e. the U.S. of America?

Noijmiw in reply to TheBowski

I agree that pure science and logic can't provide a fail-proof moral basis, since from a scientific p.o.v. life has no meaning or purpose (life is just a product of a chemical reaction that started billions of years ago, with natural selection as driving mechanism, but with no "desired" goal), and thus would be value-less. But we can strive towards an as-scientific-as -possible morality. By only rejecting life's inherently nihilistic character (= we take as an axiom that life has value, even though it isn't scientifically true. So the opposite of natural law), logic laws and the scientific method can very well be used as a base for morality and ethics and it works very well (I've been thinking about this for a couple of years).
"Natural law" is based on a much more far-reaching axiom than scientific ethics though. Scientific ethics only poses as a basic axiom that life has value to us, even though we know that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't. But proponents of natural law are claiming that life is FUNDAMENTALLY and INHERENTLY valuable, giving some kind of "holy" value to life, which distorts (with respect to scientific considerations) results coming from this theory. It's also not helpful that because of this "holy" value they give to life, natural law is a magnet for religion-inspired morality often leading to "natural-religious" moralities, which take in further axioms, derived from religious considerations.
Everyone knows that the more axioms you need to generate a theory, the further away this theory will statistically be from an objective representation of the "truth" (because you introduce more potential errors at the basis). Morality isn't different. I'll always prefer morality based on as-few-as-possible axioms, and scientific morality is the theory that uses the less axioms (Natural law has a couple of axioms, the precise number depending on who you ask. Religious morality has a ton of them, since often a whole religious texts are used as axiom).


It is my impression from reading Mr. Gorsuch’s published work as a legal scholar and a judge that he is a thinker who carefully considers the nuances and implications presented by the actual FACTS in a case before the bench before he arrives at an opinion. FACTS consist of material that comes to bear in applying the discipline of legal reasoning to the FACTS.
Regardless the opinion reached, the rationale he provides connects point A with B and point C, etc., until he reaches the conclusion.
IMHO, This manner of legal reasoning is not, cannot be, driven by a political ideology. It is, jurisprudentially speaking, the only respectable and acceptable mode of legal reasoning.
Ideally, this mode is also the essence of the job of a Justice. A justice ought not be taken as, or expected to be, the mouthpiece for any type of popularism - be it left, right, liberal or conservative. Like the weather, that sort of stuff changes as surely as the seasons change. What is hot for one latitude is cold for another.
Otherwise, a justice is but another politician.
I think we have enough of those in the other 2 branches of government. Let’s give this third branch its autonomy. After all, that is the purpose for which it was created in the beginning.
Mr. Gorsuch's written legal opinions always present a rationale easily digestible as it is written in a clear enough language, relatively rid of jargons, and accessible to an average responsible thinker. I stress “responsible”. “Responsible” means honest, not an ideologue.
Whether you agree with his conclusion or not, he is convincing. That is a very important attribute for a USSC Justice.
His relative youngish age adds to his strength. He is old enough to be mature, young enough to NOT be at risk of premature senescence of the sort that cuts the sufferer/owner off from the continuing evolution of REALITY. A judge who is cut off from REALITY is by definition an incompetent judge, if not incompetent anything to start with, including a politician.

HopefulObserver in reply to ashbird

Don't be fooled. He's a Catholic ideologue. I am a lawyer in Colorado who has actually read his opinions. He's illiterate in the history and text of the U.S. Constitution and he does this under a facade of "divining" the "original meaning".
Judges in the US are to apply the law to the facts, but juries are the triers of facts. Gorsuch makes up his own sources of law and facts.
"Natural law" is a religious ideology, debunked centuries ago, and deliberately omitted as a source of law in the framing of the U.S. Constitution.

LexHumana in reply to HopefulObserver

"'Natural law' is a religious ideology, debunked centuries ago, and deliberately omitted as a source of law in the framing of the U.S. Constitution."
Nothing could be further from the truth. (1) The concept of natural law goes back to the ancient Greeks -- Aristotle wrote about it extensively, as did many other pre-Christian philosophers. (2) the Declaration of Independence (which is found officially in the U.S. Code at Title 1), states in one of its most famous lines "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" -- this is about as clear an enunciation of natural law as you will ever find. Likewise, (3) the Constitution DOES enshrine particular natural law liberties in its Bill of Rights. For example "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" is not a statement of a right granted by a statute somewhere -- it is a right inherent in the people that cannot be infringed by the government. I would also note that if you believe in some sort of "right of privacy" (which defenders of Roe v. Wade should be advocates of), then you are advocating a natural law position.

HopefulObserver in reply to LexHumana

Yes, the ancient Greeks may have believed in "natural law" but it was debunked in English law long before the US was founded and deliberately omitted as a source of law for the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is not based in "natural law"', its based in the language you cited in (3) being drafted and ratified by human beings.

The Constitution is the governing document of the United States not the Declaration of Independence. See the Supremacy Clause. There are framers, such as John Dickinson, who refused to sign the Dec because of this issue. Trying to impose the Dec as law is a legal fallacy known as "Declarationism". You'll flunk out of law school if you try to say that!

D Scott

Because everything in the world pretty much comes down to Roe v Wade. Perhaps it will need it to be illegal if we build a wall and stop the main form of population growth in the US.

xaveria in reply to D Scott

I'm pretty sure Roe v Wade is entirely relevant to this particular discussion. Its passage was a glaring example of exactly what the article warns us against: it's what happens when judges allow their personal convictions to influence, even override, their role as interpreters of existing law. The possibility of its revocation is what makes people nervous of Mr. Gorsuch's belief in natural law.

The wall, which I don't support in any way, is completely off topic.


I entirely agree that Supreme Court justices should rule on the strict literal meaning of the law; at most taking into consideration the intent of the lawmakers. It would be terrible if these un-elected, permanently enthroned powers were to allow their personal beliefs to allow them to creatively interpret the law. If that happened, someone might interpret: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." to mean: "States may make no law restricting a woman's access to abortion."
I do not hold with whataboutism. Supreme Court Justices must be held to the highest judicial standard. But for decades, leftists have derided my concern over this very subject. For decades I have endured smug liberals describing the Constitution as "a living document," of leftists cheering activist judges for overriding the will of the people when the people were 'just plain wrong about something'. For the left to suddenly start hand-wringing about constitutional constructionalism is just gross hypocrisy.