Neil Gorsuch | Full Episode 8.16.24 | Firing Line with Margaret Hoover | PBS

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch discusses his new book "Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law" and makes the case that federal agencies and unaccountable bureaucrats have far too much power over Americans' lives.

Listen to our podcast for extended interviews:

FOLLOW US:

FIRING LINE WITH MARGARET HOOVER airs on PBS. Launched in June 2018, Firing Line maintains the character of the original series by William F. Buckley Jr., providing a platform that is diligent in its commitment to a balanced exchange of opinion. In weekly 30-minute episodes, host Margaret Hoover engages in a rigorous exchange of ideas with political leaders, cultural luminaries, thought leaders and activists who represent a wide range of ideas and perspectives. New episodes are available Fridays here on YouTube at 8:30 pm ET.

[mab]

What Gorsuch said during his Senate confirmation hearing: “Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

[Sisterwayne]

Next time ask him some challenging questions This was a puff piece for him.

[MatthewBrackett_Official]

Educational interview about how our legalistic mentality tends to over legislate and over regulate in contradictory ways. So many people criticize religions for too many rules and we do the same in government. An interesting focus of the book on how we do this. Whether you like this gentleman or not.

[musoangelo]

Sorry Margret, gorsuch just ruled that the president is above the law and you didn't even breach that subject. Really disappointed. During his confirmation, he stated under oat that roe was settled law and then overturned it. You didn't even ask him about that. Disappointed

[bc-emxn]

You can't be free without accountability either!

[Lst-nfound]

Laws and regulations exist because people keep finding ways to violate laws so they must be clarified. Business as a whole category will always prioritize profit over any morals or decency.

[charlesunderwood]

How is a judge to know what is the correct science or if there is science on both sides of an argument.

[brianmulhall]

I guess the PBS crowd isn't smart enough to understand how interviews work so ill explain.

Because he is sitting Associate Justice and isn't going to sit down to be grilled by the press over his judicial opinions (because why would he he has lifetime tenure and couldn't care less about your feelings on their rulings) he gets to set the ground rules for the interview and he can limit the discussion to probably the promotion of his new book and maybe a few other topics if he is wiling to do so.

[ColonelFredPuntridge]

Right wing ultra-wealthy guys will buy his book in bulk quantities so that it can be listed as a best seller, in exchange for rulings favorable to their interests.

We should make it illegal for justices and judges to earn any income at all or to receive any gifts at all, direct or indirect, while they are on the federal payroll. That should include speaking fees and royalties on books and part-time teaching jobs and gifts

[chadgrabner]

PBS is supposed to do better than this. Here a SCOTUS justice openly says he hates regulations, uses examples of individuals to make his point, but his clients are really the big corporations.
Why not ask him if he thinks Chevron is bad because it impeded him from being an activist judge?
Also, Gorsuch showed he struggles with laws he doesn't like, such as the immigration law, but it's not his job to state his opinion. Rather he is supposed to rule on the law.
And if you get rid of Chevron, and insist Congress pass a specific "parts per million" level of pollutant for each That's going to create a ton of new Regulations. A new law for every scenario.
In the end, SCOTUS conservatives will just pull out their Big Question doctrine which says: who cares about the text of the law, let's just frame the issue in our Big Question way.
The textualism sh*t they always claimed died once they gained a super majority. Nominated by a political party that has only won 2 out of 9 POTUS elections since 1988, but owns 6 out of 9 SCOTUS justices.

[johnpaulgeorgeandringo]

Who really cares what Gorsuch has to say, he is too full of himself.

[thinktoomuchb]

On the arsenic story... so, a court or the community should have decided the safe level? Wouldn't that still be a regulation?

[mab]

Does he get an RV or free vacation as an appearance fee?

[philiphorrocks]

On June 22, 1969, an oil slick caught fire on the Cuyahoga River just southeast of downtown Cleveland, Ohio. The image that the "the river caught fire" motivated change to protect the environment. This happened before chevron

[MamaJanella]

"I can't tell people how to live..." Says the guy who voted to overturn Roe.

[jimtitus]

We gotta see and hear from this guy for life?

[margaretdoyle]

Why is a Supreme Court justice giving a public interview?

[JackAndrews-xg]

She was very intimidated by the Supreme Court justice and no reason to interview to promote his book. Deal with the mess of the Supreme Court issues or don’t bother! A terrible interview.

[Danimal]

Good interview that both sides need to hear. Way too much bureaucracy and red tape

[rjs]

Just care or can't bear to listen to a political statement by one of the BENT justices. Shame on you for giving this immoral man a platform.