This is what Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch was like in college
When President Donald Trump announced that he had nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, conservatives cheered. Gorsuch has been widely described as a natural successor to the man he’s replacing, the late Antonin Scalia. The right has been burned by supposedly conservative Court appointees who turned out to be much more liberal, but nobody seems to think that will happen with Gorsuch.
A look at Gorsuch’s time as an undergraduate at Columbia University in the 1980s shows that conservatives have ample reason to be so trusting of him. Gorsuch was an active and vocally conservative participant on campus. He heatedly defended the Reagan administration through its worst controversy, criticized apartheid protesters, scorned black movements, and even founded a publication known for attacking campus activists. He also made arguments about the separation of powers that could provide an insight into what he would do on the Court.
In January 1987 Gorsuch, then a sophomore at Columbia, wrote a staunch defense of the Reagan administration over the Iran-Contra scandal—when the White House was caught making secret weapons sales to Iran (which was outlawed at the time) to trade for hostages (also outlawed) and raise money for Nicaragua’s right-wing contras (you guessed it, also outlawed)—in the Columbia Spectator.
Dismissing the “illegality claim” as a “superficial issue,” Gorsuch wrote that Reagan possessed the executive authority to make the trade—a classic conservative argument:
Many have speculated that the President doesn’t legally have the power to transfer funds from the sale of arms to Iran to the Contras, yet few recall —or more correctly, choose to recall—the powers of commander-in-chief. Jefferson, with his word alone, bought the whole of Louisiana and sent Louis and Clark off to explore it. More recently, FDR freely sent dozens of U.S. Navy vessels and arms to England before our entry into World War II. These presidents did not ask, nor did they need to ask, Congress, Sam Donaldson, or those precious presidential pollsters. Simply because members of Congress, news commentators, and folks at Columbia may not like Reagan’s action does not, believe it or not, make it illegal.
Congress—and the law—saw things differently. Multiple Reagan officials were sentenced for obstructing or deceiving Congress, and a congressional committee concluded the administration acted with “secrecy, deception, and disdain for the law.”
In another article, Gorsuch slammed a coalition of activists urging Columbia to divest from corporations supporting South African apartheid. They “seem willing to sacrifice the large income from (Columbia’s) endowment, which goes to pay for our need-blind admissions, among other things,” he wrote.