Judges should be in the business of declaring what the law is using the traditional tools of interpretation, rather than pronouncing the law as they might wish it to be in light of their own political views.

This quote by Neil Gorsuch, an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, outlines his judicial philosophy regarding the proper role of judges in a constitutional democracy. When Gorsuch states that “Judges should be in the business of declaring what the law is,” he is reaffirming the principle that judges are meant to interpret the law—not to create or reshape it according to personal or political views. His perspective aligns closely with originalism and textualism, legal interpretive methods that emphasize adhering to the text and original meaning of statutes and the Constitution.

Gorsuch's use of the phrase “traditional tools of interpretation” refers to well-established legal methods such as examining the plain meaning of the text, historical context, precedent, and legislative intent. These tools help judges apply the law consistently and objectively, rather than relying on subjective ideologies or shifting political winds. This approach aims to maintain judicial restraint, preserving the separation of powers by limiting the judiciary’s role to interpreting rather than legislating.

The quote also critiques the tendency of some judges to let personal values influence their rulings, which Gorsuch sees as a threat to the rule of law. According to him, when judges pronounce what the law should be based on their political beliefs, they overstep their constitutional role and undermine legal predictability and neutrality. His statement is a defense of judicial objectivity and a caution against judicial activism.

Ultimately, Gorsuch’s quote reinforces the idea that impartiality is essential to maintaining public trust in the judiciary. By grounding decisions in the law as written, rather than how judges might wish it to be, he advocates for a legal system based on principles, not preferences. This philosophy continues to influence his decisions on the Supreme Court and contributes to the ongoing national conversation about how laws should be interpreted and applied.