Media

Gorsuch Weighs In On Judge Judy, The Death Of Civility And Why He’ll Stay In His Lane

Screen Shot/Fox News

Virginia Kruta Associate Editor

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch admitted he was “an admirer” of Judge Judy during an interview with Fox News’ Martha MacCallum that aired Tuesday.

Gorsuch gave a wide-range interview except for one subject: politics. Every time MacCallum pressed him to weigh in on something political, he felt out of his lane as a judge, so he pushed back. “I’ll leave politics to the political branches,” Gorsuch said. (RELATED: Neil Gorsuch: Don’t Have Confidence In America? Look Elsewhere)

WATCH:

Gorsuch began by talking about the Constitution and how much Americans don’t understand about the fundamental law that protects their lives and freedoms. “One of the things that struck me is that there are some challenges we face today in civic understanding about our Constitution, some of the freedoms and protections it provides,” Gorsuch began. “About a third of Americans, only a third, can name the three branches of our government. Another third can name one and 10% of Americans think Judge Judy serves on the Supreme Court of the United States. I’m an admirer, but she is not one of my colleagues.”

“How did we get to this place?” MacCallum asked.

“Well, I don’t know,” Gorsuch conceded, adding, “I think part of it is that we stopped teaching civics in classrooms and civility along with it.”

MacCallum pointed out the fact that there are plenty who have blamed President Donald Trump for the lack of civility in American politics. “What do you say to that?” she asked.

“I’ll leave politics to the political branches,” Gorsuch responded. “I’m here to talk about the Constitution, why it is so important we understand what it protects.”

MacCallum noted that Gorsuch only agreed in his opinions with Trump’s second appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, about 30% of the time. Gorsuch smiled, firing back, “Imagine that! We are not nine robots, we are nine judges.”

Gorsuch went on to explain his approach to reviewing cases. “I’m an originalist, an unabashed, unafraid originalist. Originalism is all about protecting and the way I approach any of these cases, it’s all about protecting the original structure of the Constitution,” he said. “Your rights today and your children’s rights are the same and never infringed, ever. Same now and always.”

He concluded by pointing out one thing he believed a lot of Americans still misunderstood. “that’s the essence of being a good judge and part of what’s totally misunderstood. A lot of non-lawyers assume that if I rule a certain way I must like that person or that policy, or dislike the other person who lost and dislike that policy,” he explained. “Half the time I go home at night thinking what I’ve had to do didn’t like, found troubling, but it’s something the law compels. It’s important that judges stay in their lane.”