Gorsuch gets some laughs, and answers, at his first Supreme Court oral argument

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch came out swinging Monday in an inaugural oral argument that showed the rookie conservative’s considerable self-confidence — and some of his judicial inclinations.

Displaying a seamless blend of preparation, persistence and humor, Gorsuch immediately cast himself into the center of a highly technical case. Over the course of an hour, Gorsuch’s performance hinted at what might be expected from the 49-year-old Colorado native for several decades to come.

“I think I am maybe emphatically agreeing with you,” attorney Christopher Landau told Gorsuch at one point.

“I hope so,” Gorsuch replied.

“I hope so, too,” Landau said.

And in what sounded like a tribute to his predecessor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch seemed to stress the importance of sticking to the black-and-white words written by lawmakers. As practiced by Scalia during his three decades on the Supreme Court, this conservative approach is sometimes summed up as “textualism.” It is related to “originalism,” as a constrained way of interpreting the Constitution.

“Wouldn’t it be a lot easier if we just followed the plain text of the statute?” Gorsuch asked at another point. “What am I missing?”

Illustratively, Gorsuch then proceeded to question the precise meaning of the phrase “subject to.”

Gorsuch previously served more than a decade on the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, giving him considerable experience with oral arguments, albeit with a lower public profile and on panels that usually consisted of only three judges.