On March 18, 2017, the Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times posted an article on the LA Times website regarding the nominee for the Supreme Court seat, Neil Gorsuch. In the article, the Board advocates “[engaging] the nominee in a serious discussion of his views” in order to determine his beliefs on how to approach the Constitution, how to approach social change in America, and how to approach previous Supreme Court rulings. The Board voices its concerns on a number of potential issues with Gorsuch’s views, such as how his “originalist” perspective could influence the interpretation of civil rights laws or how he may attempt to make the court resistant against social changes in America. Since Gorsuch’s specific beliefs and intentions in such areas are presently unclear, the Board asserts that it is necessary to question the Supreme Court nominee about his beliefs in order to discover how he would influence the Supreme Court in the future.
The Editorial Board’s apparent purpose in writing the article is to convince its audience to be more skeptic towards the Supreme Court nominee, since his actions in the Supreme Court could have drastic consequences for the American people. The Board makes use of several pathos appeals intended to appeal to its audience’s sense of American ideals, such as “liberty” and “equal protection of laws,” with the apparent intention of turning the audience against Gorsuch, whom the Board appears to depict as a potential threat to these ideals as a result of his “originalist” views. This particular usage of pathos is more likely meant to criticize rather than antagonize, yet the Board’s use of pathos evokes rather strong emotions in readers that appear to be directed against Gorsuch rather than in support of him. In the same manner, the Board draws further skepticism to Gorsuch’s originalist beliefs by listing specific examples of cases in which interpreting the Constitution without regard to context would have drastically influenced the civil rights of Americans, such as those relating to “sexual discrimination” in the 20th century and GPS tracking in more recent years; such examples serve as ethos appeals, through which the Board establishes credibility for itself as a speaker on the subject while also strengthening their argument on the need to carefully and thoroughly evaluate the intentions of the Supreme Court nominee.
Personally, I agree on the Board’s argument that Gorsuch should be carefully interviewed for his potential role as a Supreme Court justice; such interviews should be conducted on any nominee for an important position, whether it is for the role of a manager of a small business or the role of an important leadership position in the federal government, and it is important to ensure that the nominee is the “right fit” for the job. However, I must disagree on the manner in which the Board depicts the originalist perspective throughout the article; while it is certainly important to be able to adjust legislation to a changing culture, it is equally important that we, as Americans, do not stray too far from the founding principles of this nation. If utilizing an originalist perspective will ensure that we stay within these principles, whereas utilizing a different perspective will cause us to drift away, then it is absolutely vital that originalism maintains an important role in reviewing American legislation. After all, if we do not stay true to our founding principles, then we risk placing ourselves in the positions of the Old Testament Israelites, who brought destruction upon themselves by straying too far from the commandments of God. (An extreme comparison, I know, but an effective one for the discussion at hand.) Therefore, although we should certainly critique and review Gorsuch’s beliefs and intentions for the position that he is about to fulfill, we should also respect the fact that the perspective that he is bringing to the Supreme Court has the potential to be beneficial to the nation.
Steven Young's Blog 