Neil Gorsuch, during his U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearing, has been interesting and informative on many levels. At one point, the distinguished jurist shared a brief anecdote that struck me as both revealing and amusing, although I am sure, not in the sense that he had intended.
The story was told in response to a question that I cannot remember in detail — something concerning a confusing court ruling no doubt — and was designed to indicate just how tricky and convoluted court cases and their subsequent arguments can be. Gorsuch described how a particular petitioner was arguing for the right to establish a church centered upon the ceremonial (and presumably frequent) use of marijuana, since they believed the plant to contain, or otherwise provide a direct path to, the Divine Creator Himself. Gorsuch moved succinctly to his, he was sure, startling conclusion, a rhetorical zinger that also revealed how careful and attentive a judge often had to be in order to unravel the truth and render the appropriate ruling: “What they really worshiped was the almighty dollar!”
There followed a moment of dull silence.
Gorsuch, incredulous, with wide eyes clearly expected a more energetic response — something akin to the astonishment the judge himself experienced at the moment of discovery no doubt. The silence seemed more like a yawn of boredom. Or perhaps the polite dismissal, disregard, the nominee’s having coughed or sneezed would have engendered. Gorsuch was unable to take this cue, and instead, nearly aghast with disbelief at the members’ apparent disinterest, decided that surely they had not heard him. He repeated, with emphasis, the conclusion of his yarn.
“It turns out they were just trying to make a buck!”
The committee members stared back dumbfounded.
Then again, politely moved on.
I began to see Gorsuch as a nice man, a good man, but also as a severely insulated man.
Was it the idea that a popular and established church within this nation’s borders and beyond might exercise as one of its central concerns the collection of funds? Was the mere mention of marijuana in league with spirituality meant to slay the legislators? How does one move deeply and steadily through the corridors and hierarchies of judicial powers, countless court cases, to arrive at the threshold of the pinnacle of the institution maintaining such a level of child-like innocence and amazement? I don’t know, maybe it’s a good thing.
— Dan Bartlett, Minooka
