Gorsuch's Contradictory Rulings Expose Supreme Court's Political Nature
Source: David Sirota. "On Tariffs, Neil Gorsuch Is Hardly Apolitical." February 23, 2026. jacobin.com
The Gist
The author argues that Justice Gorsuch's flip-flopping on presidential power - first supporting it when convenient for Trump, then opposing it when Trump became unpopular - proves that Supreme Court justices are just politicians in robes, not the neutral referees they pretend to be.
Conclusion
Supreme Court justices, particularly Neil Gorsuch, are just as political and unprincipled as other government officials, not the apolitical referees they claim to be
Premises
- Gorsuch contradicted himself by supporting congressional power over tariffs in 2026 while previously supporting absolute presidential immunity in 2024
- Both cases involve the same fundamental question of executive power limits, making his opposing stances logically inconsistent
- The timing of Gorsuch's positions correlates with Trump's popularity - defending presidential power when Trump was ascending, limiting it when Trump became unpopular
- Supreme Court justices are selected for political ideology and many were former political operatives
- The Court consistently responds to corporate power demands and political dynamics rather than consistent legal principles
Assumptions
- Consistent legal principles should lead to consistent judicial positions on similar constitutional questions
- Timing of judicial decisions that correlates with political circumstances indicates political motivation
- The public perception of the Supreme Court as apolitical is false and needs correction
- Past political involvement of justices predicts future political behavior on the bench