Of all the Supreme Court justices currently serving, none write anywhere near as well as Neil Gorsuch. That's a pretty high bar to meet when all nine are paid to write for a living (though some have certainly fallen short in the past, cough cough, Anthony Kennedy).

Gorsuch, however, writes with clarity and wit, two qualities unfortunately lacking in many legal texts. I first took notice of him thanks to his one-paragraph dissent in Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak, remarkable for the simplicity of both its prose and its argument, and have been an avid reader of his ever since. This book, accordingly, has lurked over me for many years, waiting for me to read it. I finally have, and I was not disappointed.

This is essentially a doctoral thesis, with some additional bells and whistles. It often reads like a doctoral thesis too, sometimes for the worse. Gorsuch often writes his opinions so that even a layman can understand them, but here, writing to his fellow Oxfordians, he doesn't have the same concerns. It's always readable, but sometimes the philosophical terms being thrown around - and against one another - tied my brain in knots.

I must admit, however, that untangling those knots was a great pleasure. This book gave me a lot to chew on, from the act/omission distinction to the arguments for personal autonomy, and helped clarify my own views on these matters. It's also surprisingly charitable toward advocates of assisted suicide and euthanasia, going so far as to suggest arguments that would probably benefit them. While repeatedly stressing what's at stake in these debates, Gorsuch never resorts to jeremiad, but writes with clarity, empathy for the suffering, and utter disdain for utilitarians, as well as Richard Posner and Peter Singer. (I've never seen him directly write a word denigrating someone - indeed, he often espouses the importance of kindness in his interviews - but I do enjoy how every once in a while, he can't help but snark at someone in his rulings.)