Neil Gorsuch’s new book, Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law, is a heartfelt case that the complexities of modern regulation place a wholly undue burden on many ordinary Americans. On the other hand, Amherst professor Austin Sarat takes a more critical view of Gorsuch’s arguments, showing the great chasm between the image he has created in this book as champion of the common man and his history.
As Sarat puts it, Gorsuch has certainly made much rhetorical hay about standing up for ordinary Americans, but his judicial record tells another story. In other words, Sarat cites rulings related to regulatory matters touching on both workers and the environment as demonstrative of such inconsistency. His positions, in Sarat’s estimation, come up far too often aligned with deregulation and the interests of business in a way that undercuts worker protections and environmental safeguards.
Sarat examines exactly how Gorsuch’s judicial philosophy, as presented in his book Over Ruled, would provide less-than-ideal legal and social results for citizens of average walk. Such an analysis raises certain core questions regarding real-world effects that would actually be engendered by Gorsuch’s brand of judging and the broader implications entailed by his jurisprudence.
Austin Sarat Takes on Neil Gorsuch’s Over Ruled: A Critical Look at Judicial Record vs Rhetoric
An Amherst professor, Austin Sarat, alleges in his latest critique that Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law produced a gulf between the book he authored and his judicial record.
Gorsuch tries to sell himself as a protector of the common man against over-regulation, but Sarat showns, at great length, that a great many of his judicial opinions say something else entirely. Especially, Gorsuch’s rulings in cases related to regulation, workers’ rights, and environmental protections create a pattern that, it seems, diverges from the advocacy he had presented in the book.
Sarat’s review points to the probability that, for Gorsuch, judicial philosophy may not swing radically to the common person, as many of his judgments end up in favor of deregulation and business interests over worker and environmental protections. That is a telling difference, raising some very critical questions about real-world implications of Gorsuch’s approach to the law, and in particular calling for greater scrutiny into how judicial perspectives are shaping legal and social outcomes.
Prof. Sarat Deconstructs Gorsuch’s ‘Over Ruled’: The Inconsistencies between Judicial Acts and Public Advocacy
In a lengthy critical review of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s Over Ruled, Sarat, an Amherst professor, pushes back most forcefully on the narrative the Supreme Court Justice builds. Gorsuch posits in his book that the overuse of legal frameworks burdens the average American, and Sarat pushes back by turning to Gorsuch’s own judicial record. As Sarat observes, Gorsuch represents deregulation at the workers’ and the environment’s expense more often than not, so this picture of Gorsuch developed in the book is in a sense far ​from the hero for any ordinary person.
The review by Sarat highlights how Gorsuch’s public advocacy on issues is at odds with his judicial decisions. It begs some questions regarding how judicial philosophies and decisions impact the realization and impacts of legal regimes: whether, indeed, Gorsuch’s legal philosophy really ties in with his professed concern for the ordinary American.
New Book from Gorsuch Under Lenses: Austin Sarat Glares at Contradictions in Judicial Philosophy
Some reviewers have said that Neil Gorsuch’s Over Ruled contains a withering critique of modern legal complexity and how overregulation imposes burdens on regular Americans. Amherst professor Austin Sarat pushes back by pointing out that there are huge differences between the claims advanced by Gorsuch in the book and as a critical analyst of his judicial record. In the book, Gorsuch had tried to project himself as a friend of the common man fighting against bureaucratic overreach. Yet, his decisions most often are found for a pro-business and deregulatory stand, which works for the detriment of the workers and the environment.
What, therefore, Sarat reviews and suggests is some deep questions on just where Gorsuch really stands on judicial philosophy. He points out how an analysis of some of Gorsuch’s rulings makes the Justice’s acts in the courtroom rather mute in comparison with the concerns that he has raised in his book. It is more than a matter of internal coherence between the public and judicial persona of Gorsuch; it is an invitation to greater scrutiny of the possible implications of legal interpretations and decisions for the overall world of social and economic relations.
