#neil's a threat in one and the most valuable thing to protect in the other 😭😭

[jeanmoreaux]

do you guys ever think about how the story starts with andrew acting quickly slamming a random racquet into neil's stomach to keep him from running away and ends with andrew acting quickly breaking riko's arm with his racquet and then using it as a shield to protect neil. because i think about it all the time.

[phantaloon-books]

Alright I got a couple comments asking for a continuation so here's part 2 of neil finding out the feds were onto smth when they recommended witness protection program

part 1

(Also thank you so much, I genuinely didn't expect such a good reception, everything I write is purely self indulgent)

Andrew is gonna fucking lose it. It's been over three weeks and not a single word from Neil fucking Josten. He's never hated him more, and this time he means it when he says hate. Actually he's not sure he hates himself or Neil more, but he feels hatred and rage and that's what matters. But of course the rabbit just left. Once a rabbit, always a rabbit.

He wanted so desperately to believe that, that Neil chose to run, that he chose to leave him them and keep running because that's what he knows best. Even if believing Neil chose to leave hurts him more than he'll ever admit, it's the best thing to believe. It's best to believe that Neil left than to believe something happened. It's best to believe Neil grew tired and bored of him them than to listen to the worry and dread Andrew's been feeling for months. It's best to believe Neil didn't want him than to let himself think of worst case scenarios.

But he can't make himself think that Neil left willingly and because he wanted to (and not it's not because he wants to believe that Neil wouldn't leave him). Neil would never run without his things, not without his stupid binder and money and contacts, not without clothes or any resources. If he ran away he would do it properly. He wouldn't leave with running clothes and his stupid flip phone. And most importantly Andrew knows that Neil has been restless lately. He's seen the way Neil checks every corner or every place, observes the people, looks for threats. He'd left those habits behind, so something has to have happened. Neil didn't just leave him.

The best thing is the other foxes aren't convinced Neil would run either. He had no one to run from, and he had a family now. And even if he was feeling overwhelmed or anxious, he would have come back. He wouldn't have taken three weeks. So they know, they know, Neil didn't leave because he wanted or needed to. And they're all anxious as hell about that bc if he didn't leave where is he?

They narrow it down eventually, and conclude that he got in a fight and is dead in a ditch somewhere, he had an accident in a coma in a hospital somewhere, he somehow got lost and/or lost his memory, someone killed him accidentally or not and his body is buried somewhere far away, or he's been taken. And Andrew cannot take the stress that he doesn't know where the fuck Neil is any longer.

He almost killed Kevin and several federal agents when Neil went missing for a few hours. This time, he hasn't tried to kill anyone yet but that hasn't stopped him from tearing every dorm apart and the stadium and the police station and the hospital and getting in fights with the FBI. He's desperate enough that he called Browning, hell, he's desperate enough that he contacted the Moriyamas, which wasn't a pleasant experience, but Ichirou had promised Neil protection and this definitely called for mafia intervention. So far neither the FBI or the Moriyamas had helped - yes they had, they informed him regularly that they were looking for Neil, but they had nothing, no clues no trails, and Andrew couldn't believe their incompetence, like for fucks sake the Moriyamas were yakuza, they ought to know what could have happened to one of their most valuable assets. And anyway if he ran, and wasn't taken, they for sure would be behind him, looking to kill him of course, but they still couldn't find him.

Andrew hasn't tried to kill anyone yet but he will soon if he doesn't find Neil, and he's sure he will start with himself. He can't remember the last time he slept or ate well, or went to exy practice, but he doesn't care. He can't care until he knows something. The lack of knowledge is driving him crazy. At this point knowing that Neil is dead and has been rotting in the countryside of Poland would be better than not knowing anything.

He hates this so much. He hates Neil for disappearing. He hates whoever went and got him. He hates the Moriyamas for not being able to find him and not keeping him safe in the first place. He hates himself for becoming so attached. He should have known better. He knew better. He knew it was a bad idea to feel all the things he feels for Neil, especially because it's Neil, the unpredictable rabbit. But he fell for the fake hope that they would make it, that he wouldn't be hurt again, that Neil would stay. He knew letting someone in again could kill him. He knows that if they don't find him, it will. He can't keep going like this. He was stupid enough to feel hopeful, but he won't be able to live once the hope dies.

He's laying in Neil's bed. He knows it's pathetic, but frankly he doesn't care. Everyday is worse than the last one. He's slipping and when he falls it's game over, he's going to make sure of that. If Neil genuinely cared, he'd be pissed at Andrew for even thinking about this. No he'd be upset, but not pissed, about the fact that he's considering taking his life over this. But he opened the door to feelings, and he won't be able to cope with them and he won't be able to close that door again. He's giving up.

Faint buzzing interrumps his thoughts. Someone's calling him. He couldn't stomach the runaway song that matched with Neil's but he couldn't stomach changing it either, so he leaves in on vibrate now. He looks at his screen. It's an unknown number. Most likely the FBI or the Moriyamas or a random police station ready to take him out of his misery and just tell him they found Neil's body. The code says it's from Minnesota. He considers not answering, but he might as well get over it.

He flips the phone open, "I only care about this if you are from the FBI or the literal mafia, so if you aren't from either, feel free to hang up." The other line stays silent for a few seconds, but when he looks at his phone, it's still going. The person didn't hang up. He doesn't have the patience for this. "I'm just gonna hang up then-"

"Andrew, wait." It's barely a hesitant whisper. The voice is absolutely shattered, rough and hoarse and very painful-sounding. There's wheezing too and labored breaths. But god. No matter how wrecked he sounds, he'd recognize that voice anywhere. In half a second he's up and falling from the bed in his haste, alert at last. He can't believe it. He wants to but he doesn't want to believe the call is real.

"Neil? Neil is that you?" He hates how vulnerable he sounds, but the thought dies quickly. There's no way, no way this is real. A sob breaks through the line, and oh it sounds so full of pain and fear.

"Andrew, I-I need you to stay safe. I don't know if they're coming for you, for the foxes. I need you to find a place where you're safe. Call Browning or Ich- the little Lord and make sure they can protect you guys for a while."

Okay that's definitely Neil even if he didn't answer the question. And Andrew's heart is going a thousand miles an hour, he doesn't feel his body anymore.

"Neil where are you? I'm coming to get you, I'll call Browning but where are you?"

"'Drew," another sob, and this one manages to break Andrew's walls more than than the whispered 'Drew', "promise me you'll stay safe, don't come looking for me, you can't take them down, please don't come looking for me."

The exhaustion and terror in his voice doesn't sit well with Andrew. The Neil he knows is not this. "For fucks sake Neil just tell me where in Minnesota you are, I'm coming to get you."

"No- no you're not, I'm not calling you because I want you to come. I just need you to promise you'll be safe."

"Neil who took you? Where are you? I can send the FBI or the japanese shits over, I swear to god I can send them to come get you if you just tell me where you are and who took you. I'll - I'll try my best to keep the others safe, but who took you?"

"I'm sorry, Andrew, I- I didn't mean to, please believe I didn't mean to leave, they- some of the Butcher's pals found me, I'm so sorry- I put all of you in danger again."

"Okay, that's something we can work with, now where are you Neil?"

"Andrew-" his breath hitches, he gasps and whimpers, "I'm so sorry, I have to go, I need to leave Andrew. Please stay safe. Look I- I love you okay? I'm sorry I didn't say it earlier."

"Neil wait don't hang up-"

And the line goes dead.

The world is falling apart, collapsing all around Andrew. He's numb but he feels encompassing terror. He can't feel a thing, he can't think. He was so close. It feels like Neil just slipped past his fingers, like he just let go of Neil and let him fall to the darkness. He thinks he may be falling too. He needs to call Browning. He does it instinctively, he doesn't register he has his phone to his ear until the FBI agents voice is calling to him. He also goes with what he's gonna say with the same instinct he pulled in Baltimore, knowing he can't mention certain mafia.

"Neil just called me, I have no idea from where, I have no idea how he got a hold of me, he didn't say a thing, he refused to say a thing other than we're in danger, the foxes, and that whoever took him will come for us- oh and apparently it's someone involved with the Butcher."

How he managed to be as apathetic and unattached to everything he said is beyond him. But whatever he says and whatever Browning says, FBI agents are now guarding them in the locker room of the Foxhole Court, with mattresses and mats laid down on the floor. and he doesn't know how they got here and he's cuffed all over again, but this time to Renee even if he doesn't remember being violent. Even the stupid rookies are here, looking extremely panicked and terrified despite most of them not giving a fuck that Neil was gone just hours ago. The other foxes - Neil's family - are pressing Andrew for answers, but he can't deal with anything at the moment.

He needs to call Ichirou too. That's the call that matters, because that's the call that can bring Neil home because he can't do that himself while cuffed to Renee and being guarded by the fucking FBI. He somehow convinces the agent to let him make a call, to his therapist he says, to grant him privacy even if that's utter bullshit. He's dragging Renee into the eye of the storm but oh well, why did they cuff him to her in the first place, it's not his fault. He calls the Moriyama representative he's been dealing with and thank Renee's god the woman answers.

"I need to talk to- to Lord Ichirou, it's about Neil Josten's whereabouts, I got important information about him." He can feel both the condescension from the other end of the line and poorly veiled shock from Renee. "I know where he is, I know about who's got him, I need to talk to Lord Moriyama."

He isn't sure how he managed it. He doesn't know how he convinced them to let them talk to their mafia boss, or how he's able to keep his cool for long enough to actually talk to the man himself. He thinks having Renee there, who asks no questions and keeps her hand on top of Andrew's with no hesitation, is part of the solution but he's not admitting that. Either or, he talks to Ichirou (he can't deny he's not terrified of messing up with the man who keeps Neil alive, but he's not admitting that either), reminds him of how Neil is important to the Moriyamas, both as an exy player and as a Wesninski, and how Neil, Kevin and Jean are loyal to the Moriyamas, hints at how Ichirou promised protection. He has perfect memory, but he will never remember how he convinced Ichirou Moriyama to send people to Minnesota and look for him all over the state and surrounding states, all he knows is that Ichirou stuck to his promise, all is good, he didn't fuck up.

Weeks pass again, nothing happens. There's no news from the Moriyamas, the FBI keeps telling him they're doing what they can. Andrew is done. No one came looking for them at least, which is nice bc they didn't die but it doesn't feel worth it when Neil wasn't back. He feels stupid for hoping he would come back safe and alive. The Moriyamas might as well have killed him for being such an inconvenience. Things are going to hell. Andrew was an idiot for falling so hard for Neil Josten. It was a mistake. He should have known better.

His anger is gone, and numbness has settled. It was becoming a habit for him to remain lying down most of the day. It was also becoming a habit for the foxes to take care of him when he did this. He can't even bother to shower if someone doesn't remind him every day, or eat, or drink water for that matter. He's a mess and he would be incredibly embarrassed if he cared a little, but he's slipping and he doesn't mind falling. Nothing is fine. Until it is.

It comes in the form of a text one morning, while he's lying on the couch in the living room. An unknown number again, New York code, and it only reads, "Threat has been dealt with - I". And what the fuck does that mean. It tells him absolutely nothing. If Ichirou bothered to text him he could at least be clear as to what the fuck that meant. Was Neil even alive? There is a soft knock at the door. Of course, someone bothers him when no other fox is at the dorm. They couldn't ditch every class to make sure Andrew didn't combust spontaneously.

He truly doesn't want to get up. He doesn't want to go answer the door. It's too much a bother. If it's someone important they'll either knock again aor shout for him to open up. He curls up in bed. He honestly wants to disappear. There's another knock, a little harder than the first. But there's no voice, no demand, no nothing. Maybe it's a Moriyama. Maybe he'll feel so disrespected or whatever he's gonna barge in and end his misery. Whatever. "Fuck off", he shouts from the couch, hoping for the best. There's another knock, for fuck's sake, can they just walk in already? Another, and he's up. Pissed and going for the door.

"Fucking hell, what do you want?" His anger is back with a passion, and he's practically stomping to the door, throwing it wide open, "Just barge through the fucking door, and get it over with-"

He has to stop exploding when people don't answer to him right away. Maybe he should work on his patience. Because frankly it has been working against him at the worst times. No it's not his fault. It's the idiot's fault for appearing at out nowhere and stealing his breath away. Everything is Neil Josten's fault.

"Hey Drew," said idiot's voice is impossibly more hoarse than when he called him before. Andrew can't tell if his heart is beating too fast or not at all. He thought he was a mess, but Neil looks like he's been through hell and back. Well, he's been through hell and back too many times before, but he's never looked this bad, and he was a mess after Evermore. His face is beaten so badly, so swollen, if he didn't know him and those stupidly blue eyes so well. Even his eyes are different, there's no spark, they're dull and hazy. He's wearing a large hoodie and sweatpants, so Andrew can't see the damage beyon his face, but at least his hands remain okay, there's no new damage. "Looks like I still have it in me to leave you speechless, huh."

Andrew takes a deep breath and he sighs. And his heart breaks. Neil. Neil. Neil is here. Andrew wants to craddle him and hold him and never let him go again. He doesn't care if it's soft, Neil is here. He raises his hands, frames Neil's face like he has before. He presses a hand to Neil's neck, looking for a pulse, and he finds it. He's alive.

"Neil," he breathes, and he feels. He feels. "You're alive, I thought, you-"

They're both silent. Andrew doesn't notice when Neil raises his hands, framing his own face. They've been here before.

"I'm not leaving you, I promised right? You're not getting rid of me that easily. "

He hates feeling this much, "You've got some explaining to do, but- it can wait."

"That's good yeah, because I'm not sure how much longer I can remain conscious and the Moriyamas weren't the best at patching everything up, so I'd really appreciate it if you call Abby."

He doesn't trust himself to open his mouth, so he guides Neil inside, holding on to his hand like a tether. Neil deflates, he grimaces as Andrew helps him to the couch. He's obviously hiding something below the clothes. Andrew stands to call Abby, but Neil grips his hand tightly. When Andrew looks up, he sees the fear and exhaustion he heard on the call weeks ago. Neil isn't able to keep up the act of being okay for long.

"Stay, pl- just," he looks away, and Andrew doesn't know how to feel about the pause, he didn't say the word, "can you stay?"

And he does. Things aren't fine. Neil is a mess. So is Andrew. They have to work through stuff. Andrew clearly has to work on the apparent dependancy issues. But they'll have time now. Neil is safe. He's alive and safe. He lost consciousness not long after he sat down, but Abby, Wymack and the foxes are on their way. They're not fine. But Neil is lying next to him, and he isn't gonna let him go again. They'll be fine.

[darkblueboxs]

Ursa Major

i.e. the beardrew fic 🐻😉

Read here or on AO3 *

“What brings you to town?” The lodge manager flashes Neil an easy smile as he holds the cabin key in one hand. They clink together just out of Neil’s reach, as though he won’t relinquish them until Neil has provided a satisfactory answer.

“Business,” Neil answers shortly, and reaches for the keys.

“Let me know if you want to squeeze a little pleasure in, too.” The manager, whose name badge reading Nicky is almost lost amongst an array of rainbow pin-badges, winks exaggeratedly. Neil keeps his expression carefully blank as he all but pries the keys from him. “Andrew will show you which cabin is yours. He’s chopping wood out back.”

Neil steps out onto the back porch of the reception building, takes one look at the guy ripping logs apart with his bare hands, and decides that he can find it himself. He tries to avert his eyes, but the man stops to watch him pass, wiping sweat from his brow with the back of his hand. He looks like such a stereotypical woodsman that Neil wonders for a second if he walked straight out of a Brawny advert, muscles flexing as he heaves a lump of wood half his size onto the log pile, several days’ worth of stubble dusting his jawline gold and a glowing worker’s tan defying the encroaching winter. He’s so stocky that Neil almost misses the fact that the man is somehow shorter than him, and for a moment his brain short-circuits as he tries to match his impossible presence to his impossible height.

Andrew – because this must be Andrew – barely spares Neil’s scars a second glance, eyes catching instead on the camera swinging around Neil’s neck. Neil’s hands go to it automatically – the device is worth more than his life – but he stills as Andrew drops the log with an earth-shaking thud. “Point that thing at me and I’ll break it.”

“I wasn’t going to.” Neil takes a step back, holding his hands in the air as though proving himself unarmed. “Sorry.”

“Whatever.” He turns back to his work, and without looking at him, adds “Yours is the last on the left.”

Neil makes no effort to hide his relief as he turns and heads up towards the row of log cabins, stumbling over exposed tree roots and pushing branches out of the way where the trees have begun encroaching on the dirt path. The place is quiet, which suits Neil perfectly; he didn’t pick wildlife photography because of his love for human company, after all. Of the dozen or so suites clustered around the central building, only two or three appear to be occupied, muddy hiking gear drying on doorsteps, BMWs with kayaks and bike racks strapped to the roofs parked down at the car park below. Neil chose the single bus that runs back and forth to the town across the lake once a day over risking a car rental on the worn dirt track; for better or for worse, he’s trapped there for the night.

Not that he expects to finish his assignment in the span of a day, but old instincts cry out for getaway options. He and his mother spent months in secluded mountain ranges like this one, but they were as much a threat as they were protection. It was easier to hear of visitors as soon as they arrived in the area, but harder to blend in amongst non-existent crowds.

He dumps his rucksack on his bed – he hasn’t broken the habit of travelling light quite yet – and takes in the neat little cabin (cosier than he expected, like it leapt out of a rustic furniture catalogue) before grabbing his kit and heading out into the hills.

He loses track of time quicker than usual, as he always does when he’s in new places, busy taking in the lay of the land, figuring out which trails are worth his time and which are too packed with litter and foot traffic to be of any use. The vistas are breath-taking; glittering pearl lakes studded throughout the endless verdant valleys, mountain ranges that draw across the swirling skyline like theatre curtains. Landscape photos aren’t Neil’s strong suit, but he snaps a few anyway, just for himself. They never had photos on the run, nothing that could be used as evidence, no footprints left in their wake. Neil likes having the mementos now, thin slips of glossy film that prove that he was alive, he was there, that he was real.

Sunset has bathed the woods in rich oranges as he makes his way back to his cabin, legs aching pleasantly with the memory of a good day’s exploration. There’s a packet of instant noodles waiting in his bag and a kettle in his cabin, but the smells drifting from the eatery in the central building convince Neil to forgo solitude for an hour and cough up for a real home-cooked meal.

Either Andrew has shaved since this morning or he has an identical twin; either way, the man who serves him chunky soup and bread does so with the barest pretences of politeness. Neil ignores the chatter of the other guests and staff as much as possible, flicking through the images on his digital display as he chews through a freshly baked roll. Neil’s twin theory is proven correct when Andrew sweeps into the dining room just as dessert is being brought out, windswept and scowling. Neil watches as he begins arranging kindling in the hearth, and soon the room is glowing with dancing light. Andrew stares into the flames, and the flickering glow carves deep shadows into his features, as though his face is transformed by the light. Neil doesn’t do portraits, but if he did, it would be perfect.

He snaps his gaze away as Andrew looks up, unfortunately catching the eye of the man at the next table.

“Photography, huh?” he says, grinning. He’s muscular too. Neil wonders if there’s something in the water here. “Got any good ones?”

Neil hands him the camera in lieu of answering, trying not to twitch his fingers as the stranger handles his most valuable possession.

“Oh, shit. These are seriously good, like, professional standard. Is this what you do for a living?” He hands the camera back and offers a hand with it. “I’m Matt, by the way.”

“Neil. Yeah, I work for National Parks Magazine.”

Matt whistles. “Fancy.”

“I guess.”

“Well, I’m no expert, but those look great to me. What is it, a tourism piece?”

“Oh, no, these were just for me. I do wildlife photography.”

“Plenty of that out here. I come down most weekends, usually see a few hawks, eagles too. We get lots of bird spotters in the Spring.”

“That’s great,” says Neil, “But not what I need for this assignment.”

“How mysterious.” Matt leans his chin on his hand. “Tell me more, Mister Bond.”

“I’m looking for bears, actually.”

There’s a clatter from across the room that cuts off Matt’s reaction as Andrew’s twin drops a stack of plates.

“Did I hear you say bears?” Nicky appears at Neil’s shoulder as if from nowhere. Neil fights back the impulse to bolt. “Mine is working at the reception desk if you want me to introduce you.”

Matt snorts. “Not that kind of bear, Nicky.”

“I heard there were grizzlies up here,” Neil says. “What do you mean, there’s a bear in the reception?”

“Oh, that’s adorable. No, I just meant my boyfriend. Though he gets a bit grizzly before his first cup of coffee most mornings-”

“There aren’t any bears here,” interrupts another voice, and Neil needs to learn to stop jumping if all the staff are going to sneak up on him like this. He turns to see Andrew’s brother wiping coffee stains from his sleeves. “You might as well leave.”

“Aaron,” Nicky says, “It’s fine, he’s a photographer, he isn’t here to hunt or anything-”

“Pretty fucked up face for a nature photographer.”

“Hey-!”

“It’s fine,” Neil cuts off Matt’s objection. “The scars were my father’s doing. He loved hunting. Me, not so much.”

The group falls quiet, which is the usual reaction his explanation gets. He has never gotten used to the awkward silences that his past invariably invokes, even when he leaves out the years of running, capture, his mother’s slow and terrible death at his father’s hands, his last-minute escape, the months of FBI interrogations and his eventual release. His father had deer heads mounted in his study and Neil remembers vividly the glassy, dead eyes that seemed to watch his every move. No, Neil is not a fan of hunting; he has spent far too long being the prey.

It’s at that moment that Andrew looks up from the fireplace, and Neil can tell from his expression that he has been listening. There’s a strange understanding which has no place on this stranger’s face, and for a moment Neil feels as though he’s stuck in the amber gaze like a fly caught in a honey trap.

“Why bears?” Matt says, and his words are like a hook pulling him from a lake. Neil forces air back into his lungs and turns back to the group. Nicky’s expression has softened, eyes still on Neil’s burns, while Aaron has sunk back into disdain. “Surely there’s less dangerous things to photograph.”

“They’re not dangerous if you’re careful,” Neil replies patiently. “Treat them with respect and they’ll do the same. Besides, I like bears.”

“I hear that,” says Nicky. Aaron pops him in the back of the head, but he waves him off, undeterred. “You should talk to Andrew. He might be able to help you-” There’s a muffled thud which sounds suspiciously like Aaron aiming a kick at Nicky’s shins out of Neil’s line of sight. “-or not, you know, whatever,” he finishes lamely.

Neil glances furtively over at Andrew, who has gone back to staring into the hearth. “It’s fine,” he says, wondering why his mouth feels so dry all of a sudden. “I’m used to finding my own way.”

Desert finished and cleared away, Neil sits with Matt on the couches that occupy the other portion of the communal area along with rows of bookshelves and a desktop computer that looks as though it hasn’t been touched since the nineties. Matt flicks through more of Neil’s photos, stopping on occasion to gasp or croon, while Neil accustoms himself to trusting Matt with his camera. The coffee table is stacked high with leaflets on hiking trails which Neil sets himself to memorising as well as pamphlets on good camping etiquette and forest fire prevention. When Aaron returns and announces that the main lodge is closing for the night by abruptly flicking the lights off, Neil is surprised to realise how late it is already. The fire Andrew started in the hearth has collapsed into flaky grey embers, and when Neil steps out onto the porch the thick smell of smoke clings to his clothes.

Neil and Matt part ways for the night, but only after Matt has extracted a promise from Neil that he will let him show him some of his favourite trails the next day.

Neil thinks he may be unconscious before his head even hits the pillow, and the rustle of the forest follows him into his sleep. In his dreams, wild creatures circle his bed, close, curious, watching, waiting.

He spends most of the weekend letting Matt show him his favourite routes that weave up and down the mountain peaks. Neil wouldn’t usually tolerate so much company, but it’s clear from Matt’s eager nature that he likes having someone to talk to, and his girlfriend, he explains, is on a work placement out of state until next month. Neil is surprised to discover that he doesn’t mind Matt’s presence, and at Matt’s insistence he takes several shots of Matt posing with the valley at his back, which Neil promises to email to him for his girlfriend.

Their hike isn’t all sightseeing, however; Neil pays close attention to any tracks and prints that could point him in the direction of bears, making a note on his map of everything he spots in hope of discerning a pattern. He’s surprised to see a lot of marks close to the popular footpaths, and centred around the lodge, too. Bears usually avoid humans unless driven from their own habitat. Neil wonders if the owners have been less than careful with the bins, encouraging raiders into the foothills scavenging for food.

He spends his evenings in the main lodge, where Matt draws him into conversation with the staff and other regulars. Nicky joins them whenever he isn’t working, and will drag Aaron over when their breaks coincide. Kevin, who is renting one of the upstairs rooms in the central lodge, will occasionally be persuaded to look up from his laptop, upon which he is typing meticulous notes about conservation of historically significant ruins in the area, a topic which Neil pretends to understand on the one occasion that Kevin tries to explain it to him. Andrew, on the other hand, shows no further interest in Neil following their first encounter. Other than occasional odd jobs around the cabins, Neil still isn’t clear on what he actually does, if anything. He seems to spend most of his days out in the wilderness, although Neil and Matt never pass him on any of their walks. Neil almost asks Nicky, but thinks better of it, sensing that such a query would be met with more glee than he is comfortable with.

On Sunday, Matt packs his gear into the back of his pickup and rolls his way back towards the main road, promising to return the following weekend. Neil waves him off, surprised by how quickly the quiet chases away the hum of the engine. He distracts himself from the returning solitude by taking himself off the marked trails and deeper into the wilderness, where the trees grow thick enough to block out the sky and the trickle of springs leads him into sludgy banks that threaten to suck his boots from his feet.

Eventually the earth flattens out as Neil reaches the valley floor, and the springs pool into a small lake that winks at Neil through the trees. Neil finds an embankment to set up on, and is so absorbed in fidgeting with his lenses that he misses the faint crack of branches breaking underfoot.

A shadow looms suddenly in front of him. Neil looks up, and goes still, breath caught in his throat.

The bear hasn’t noticed him yet. He – which he must be, going by the size – is reared up on his hind legs, eight feet tall at least, nose twitching. Neil would normally be jumping at such a stroke of luck, but the shocking bright blond of the bear’s fur stills his fingers on the shutter. He would say polar bear if he didn’t know better, but he does, and they’re about a million miles too far south for that to make sense. So maybe it’s the surprising colour, or the surprise of being so lucky as to just stumble across him, but some combination of the two causes Neil to do something incredibly stupid.

He opens his mouth.

“Oh, you are beautiful.”

The bear goes still. Then he turns, hazel eyes fixing on Neil.

Neil suddenly feels very, very small. Rule one of tracking bears – don’t surprise them. Weirdly, though, this bear doesn’t react in typical bear-like fashion. There is no reflexive snarling, no intimidation, no panic. Just the faintest twitch of his ears, a huff of… irritation?

“Sorry,” Neil says automatically, then winces, because he is talking to the bear now, for god’s sake-

Then again, it isn’t like he’s doing any harm. “You are just adorable. I hope you know that you are so cute. Look at those chubby cheeks!”

And, okay, maybe he’s using the same voice he uses to talk to stray cats, but in his defence, how often does he get the chance to baby-talk a bear?!

The bear just sort of stares at him, which is… odd, probably, but as long as he isn’t snapping Neil like a toothpick Neil isn’t too concerned. The gaze is piercing, like the bear is seeing right through him, and it’s disconcerting enough that Neil almost loses his grip on the camera.

Speaking of which…

Click.

The bear… pulls a face. Neil is about to apologise again, but the words die in his mouth when he drops onto his front paws with a thud that shakes straight through the earth. The urge to run seizes Neil suddenly, hand-in-hand with a familiar burst of adrenaline, and for a moment he’s twelve years old, tripping over his own feet as his mother yanks him through the dark with heart-stopping urgency.

You can’t run from bears, is the thing.

Slowly, Neil pushes himself up the bank, leaning heavy on his arms because he doesn’t trust his legs to support him. The bear just…watches. No, glares.

All at once, the fear that seized him so suddenly is gone, and Neil lets out a shaky breath.

“Thank you,” he says, because it seems rude, almost, to do otherwise. He taps his camera. “You were amazing.”

He scrambles up the bank and back into the woods, heart thudding in time with his footsteps.

Back at the cabin, he plugs his camera into his laptop with shaking fingers. He doesn’t stop to check the photo preview on the camera’s digital display, wants to see it blown up on his laptop screen in full jpeg glory.

It’s been a while since he backed up all his pictures, and as the loading bar trickles towards 100%, Neil’s stomach starts to growl. Grumbling, Neil leaves his computer to finish compiling and heads down to the main lodge in search of food.

It’s midweek, so the dining room is emptier than usual, although Neil spots Andrew in his usual place by the fireside almost immediately. They’ve been successfully ignoring each other since the day of Neil’s arrival, but the day’s events spur him to take a seat at Andrew’s side. “Nicky said you know about bears.”

Andrew flicks a scrap of newspaper into the flames. “Nicky says a lot of things.”

“I saw…” Neil winces. This is going to sound insane. “He looked like a polar bear.”

Andrew huffs, although it’s hard to say whether in scorn or amusement. “You saw a Kermode bear. They’re a subspecies of the American black bear.”

“You see a lot of them here?”

“No.”

It isn’t that Neil thinks Andrew is lying, not exactly, but there’s something he isn’t saying. Neil knows the shape of a secret, how it weighs in one’s chest, and Andrew is keeping something big in there, bristling beneath his skin.

“He was beautiful,” Neil says. “The most beautiful I’ve ever seen.”

“I don’t care,” Andrew replies, and this time Neil swears he can see the bristling. “Don’t say things like that.”

“Why not? I’m a photographer. Finding beauty is my job.”

“Your job is to take pictures of shit and persuade people to pay you for it. Beauty is a construct.”

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

“Exactly.”

“But not in your eye?” Neil guesses. Andrew’s brow creases in irritation. He dismisses Neil’s comment.

“What are you going to do now that you have found your precious bear?”

Neil shrugs. “Onto the next assignment. Wherever that is.”

“Sounds like a strange life.”

“I’m used to it.”

Aaron clatters into the dining room, grinding their conversation to a halt. His irritation turns to an open glare when he sees Neil at Andrew’s side, so Neil moves off to take his usual seat.

After dinner he calls his editor with an update, slouched in one of the communal couches and watching as Aaron and Nicky squabble over a game of pool.

“Neil, I’m telling you, there’s no way you saw a Kermode bear.” Robin says as paper rustles furiously on the other end of the line. “You’re on the wrong side of the continent.”

“But I did. I wish you could have seen him. He was so… calm.”

“Neil,” Robin says, “Are you sure?”

“I have the picture to prove it. I’ll send it over as soon as I’m back in my cabin. Is this, like, a big deal? Do you think there’s some kind of undiscovered subspecies, or… I don’t know, this seems like the kind of thing bear scientists would care about.”

Nicky and Aaron’s bickering suddenly falls silent. Neil doesn’t bother looking up to see why, not when Robin is snorting on the other end of the line. “Bear scientists.”

“I don’t know what they’re called. I’m just the dumbass who takes the photos.”

“Maybe they’ll name it after you. The Josten bear.”

Neil winces. “Poor bear.”

“Alright. I’ll be waiting at my desk. But I swear, if this is another prank or something-”

“I would never,” Neil says innocently. “I know you find my pranks un-bear-able.”

“Oh my god, shut up,” Robin says, and promptly hangs up.

He’s eager to deliver on his promise as soon as possible, but Nicky catches him on his way to the door. Aaron disappeared at some point while Neil was on the phone, which is the only reason he accepts Nicky’s offer of a drink on the house, even if he won’t be persuaded from his soft drink of choice.

“That sounded like a big deal,” Nicky says, gesturing at Neil’s phone while not meeting his eyes. Once again, Neil’s neck prickles with the sense that something is being kept from him.

“Apparently I’ve found a bear species a million miles from where it should be,” Neil says. “It could be a big deal for you, too. Researchers coming to the area means more business for you, right?”

“Wow, yeah, sure.” Nicky’s smile is as pasty as it is wide. “Brilliant.”

“Speaking of,” says Neil. “I’ll be checking out a few days early. If you see Matt, can you tell him I’m sorry I missed him?”

“Sure,” says Nicky, although Neil isn’t sure he’s really listening. Neil glances at the amber liquid swirling in the bottom of Nicky’s glass and wonders if it’s stronger than it looks.

The temperature has dropped sharply in the time it took Neil to eat his dinner, and as he trudges back uphill to his cabin on weary legs the wind cuts through his light gear like a blade. His cabin windows spill orange on the path, a lamp left on, dumb, wasteful, isn’t he always complaining about light pollution-?

Neil stops dead a foot from his cabin door. He knows, knows, knows, that someone has been in since he last was there. The lodge offered daily cleaning services, but Neil had opted out for the duration of his stay, uneasy about strangers having access to his belongings even now that he has nothing left to hide. He wants to believe that they made a mistake in the cleaning schedule, but the same gut instinct telling him someone has been in his cabin tells him that it was no accident. Something is wrong.

Neil pushes the door open with the lightest press of his fingers. Adrenaline hums through him, old instincts reawakening as he prepares to be attacked.

The cabin is empty. No, not empty; the furniture, his clothes, phone charger, hiking gear, all still there…

But no laptop. And no camera.

Neil swears viciously. Before he knows it, he’s back at the central lodge, even though all the lights are out and they’re clearly closed for the night. Neil’s hand hovers over the bell at the front desk as the haze of his panic and fury lifts. They’re in the middle of nowhere, meaning the thief was either another lodger or a member of staff. Any accusations he makes won’t go anywhere.

Neil thinks of Aaron disappearing after his phone call, and instead of ringing the bell he clenches his hand into a fist.

The staff and permanent lodgers live over the main building, and although Neil has never seen the upper floor he can tell which windows are theirs by the glow on the other side of the curtains. The walls are made of thick, horizontal tree trunks that make for easy grips. Neil barely has his foot lodged against the first rivulet when he is caught in amber torchlight.

“Can I help you?” Andrew says rhetorically.

Neil drops back to the ground, teeth grinding together. If Andrew’s brother has resorted to a life of crime, there’s no way his twin hasn’t noticed. “Just looking for my things.”

“You won’t find them up there.” Andrew’s eyes flick up. “That’s Nicky and Eric’s room. I can only imagine what horrors would await you.”

“Which is Aaron’s?”

“You won’t find anything in his, either.”

“You would know, wouldn’t you?” Neil snaps. Andrew’s expression is infuriatingly impassive, and Neil knows that arguing any longer will be as productive as shouting at a brick wall. “Tell your cousin I won’t be checking out early after all. It turns out I have more work to do.”

Andrew clicks the torch off, plunging them both into sudden darkness. “I’m not your messenger boy.” Even in the dark, Neil can feel heavy hazel eyes burning into him.

“I don’t care.” Neil storms back off to his cabin, not waiting for a response. He sends Robin an apologetic text and drops onto his bed. Half-formed plans buzz around his mind like flies, but when he eventually falls asleep, it’s with the memory of a ghostly-white bear looking into his very soul. * Thanks for reading! Chapter two is on its way. <3

[nickireadstfc]

The King's Men, Chapter 1 – Hello Foxhole, My Old Friend

In which the Foxes are introduced to Meat Grinder Neil, Nicky misses an opportunity for a memeworthy Christmas gift, we find out some things about Jean, and Andrew and Neil chill on a rooftop or whatever.

Sounds good? Then it’s time for Nicki to read The King's Men.

Hello hello hello, we’re back! Welcome to the one, the only, the glorious, all-surpassing, awe-inspiring, shade-throwing, capslock-inducing and feels-wrecking finale to this hell of a ride called All For The Game - welcome to The King's Men.

Let’s start at the very front: A cover, as always, says more than a thousand words, and this cover has one clear message it shouts in the faces of those familiar with the series, clear as day and ringing like a bell: IT'S SHOWDOWN TIME, FUCKERS.

Two Exy racquets, one orange, one black, crossed, clashing. The title, half-orange, half-black. Nora Sakavic' name at the bottom, also half-orange, half-black, menacingly laughing in my face like Rumpelstiltskin on crack, glee-drunk on my surely following future tears.

Whee-hee. Let’s fucking go.

(Also, the chapters are getting much longer by this book, so y'all will have to deal with these posts being longer as well. Soz.)

          Even after a semester at Palmetto State University and a couple weeks practicing on the largest Exy stadium in the United States, Neil was still struck breathless by the Foxhole Court.

Neil, my boy, you never disappoint. Even through hardship, bruises and cuts, one thing can always be relied on: Your gigantic boner for Exy. Get a room, you two.

          “It’s time to go,” Wymack said.

          That was enough to make Neil get up, although his battered body protested.

Oh yeah, quick reminder for anyone who might have forgotten (although – why the fuck would you ever): Neil is currently walking minced meat with Trauma Jetlag™, a literal prison tattoo, and #allnatural #naturaleyes #naturalhair #nomakeup #nofilter.

Because of that, he’s obviously not that keen on running into his squad at the moment. Can’t exactly blame the dude.

If I looked like Freddy Krueger with a facial tramp stamp, I wouldn’t go around instagramming selfies either.

Especially when I willingly ran into the arms of the dude who is nationally known for giving out facial tramp stamps.

          Wymack had even locked the office in his short absence. Neil had been in there enough times to know Wymack didn’t keep anything particularly valuable on his shelves. The only thing of any import was Neil’s duffel. (…) On Neil’s first day in South Carolina he had asked Wymack to protect his things, and seven months later Wymack was still keeping that promise. It was almost enough to make Neil forget all about Riko.

Guys, this just in: Wymack is still the best damn person alive. #dicksoutforwymack

The best damn person alive also already warned the Foxes Neil looked like a human punching bag in order to prevent them from having an actual heart attack when they see him. Yay, have fun explaining yourself to them, hombre.

          Matt moved soundlessly for a few moments before he finally managed to choked, “Jesus Christ, Neil.”

          “It’s not as bad as it looks,” Neil said.

This just in: Neil is Veronica from Heathers, minus the 80’s hair-do.

In order to fulfill his self-appointed role as Neil’s mother hen, Matt then swiftly goes and punches newly-arrived Kevin in the fucking face – which is generally a sentiment I can support, although it really is not his fault this time.

          Matt stared at him for an endless minute, then said, “I want to break [Riko’s] face in six places. If he ever comes within a thousand yards of you again –“

Same, Matt. Fucking SAME.

Matt being protective of Neil will never not give me a healthy dose of The Feels™.

One confrontation down, four to go: What do Aaron, Nicky and Kevin have to say to Mr Meat Grinder?

          Unsurprisingly, Aaron was the safest one to look at. (…) Neil gave him a moment to see if he’d ask, but all Aaron did was shrug.

Glad to see the usual amounts of sympathy and care coming from one half of the Minyard Murder Twins.

Although I’m doubting the other half will muster up any more affection.

          Nicky, on the other hand looked absolutely crushed as he took in Neil’s wrecked appearance. He reached out as soon as Neil was close enough and wrapped his hand around the back of Neil’s neck, (…) carefully pulling Neil up against him.

Also, glad to see the usual freaking normal reaction coming from Nicky, aka some goddamn comforting hugs for once in this cold, cold monster squad.

Nicky hugs are the best hugs.

          At least Kevin had the decency to speak in French. “Tell me the master didn’t approve this.”

Every time Kevin still calls Tetsuji “the master”, a little tiny thing inside my heart dies.

10/10 would protect my tiny big ass traumatized son.

          “Riko said he’d hurt us if I change it back. All I can do is duck my head and hope for the best.” (…)

          “How long do you think he’ll let you hide before he forces you to show [the tattoo] off? The press will be all over this (…). He’s trying to get you found.”

Well, duh.

I’m already looking forward to Neil regaining his confidence, and then I’m looking forward to him sassing the absolute everloving shit out of whoever tries to come for him for his appearance and tattoo.

          “He wouldn’t waste his time unless he thinks we really are going to be a problem for his team That means something, doesn’t it? (…) Kevin, you do what you do best and focus on Exy. Take us where he doesn’t want us to go.”

Hell effin yes.

We’re gonna fucking make it to finals, and we’re gonna fucking shoot that dumb Exy ball so hard around those Raven Fuckers’ heads that we shoot the asshole smirk right off Riko’s ugly face.

Yas.

          Nicky looked between them as if making sure they were done, then scooped his gift bags up again and held one out to Neil.

          “Belated Christmas present,” he said, a little sadly.

NICKY LET ME LOVE YOU.

Trust this dude to always bring the sunshine around at the end of the day.

          “I’ve got Andrew’s with me, too. Actually, I got you two the same thing because you are like the most impossible people in the world to buy for.”

Knives, hair dye, black T-Shirts, cigarettes, a coupon for an anger management course,… Andreil gift-shopping ain’t that hard, homie.

But scratch all that - Nicky got them each a winter coat!

This would have been even better if Nicky hadn’t gotten the same coat for each of them, but literally the same coat – because now all I can imagine is Neil and Andrew stuck in one coat like a Get Along Shirt.

If someone makes this into fanart, I will pay you in Ben & Jerry’s. I’m being dead serious.

Four reunions done and the most important one still to go – one road trip to Columbia later:

        “If you’ll sign in, I’ll ring Dr. Slosky and let him know you’re here.”

        (...) Neil was the only one who hesitated when his pen touched the paper. Riko hadn’t let him be “Neil” at Evermore. Every time Neil answered to it on the court, Riko beat him for it. (…) Riko wanted him to know how much trouble he’d caused the Moriyamas with all of his alibis.

Jesus fuck. Is there literally anything he didn’t get beat for at the Batcave of Extra?

Actually, don’t answer that.

Also, hate to be that person again but – shouldn’t he have gotten to that bit of trauma way earlier? Wymack and the Foxes called him Neil so many times already, why is this only kicking in now?

I legit don’t have an explanation and I think it may just be a continuity error. If anyone does have a good explanation, shoot me an ask.

They sit down to wait for Andrew and to everyone’s surprise (including mine), Kevin uses the wait to do something so incredibly out of character my figurative wig was instantly snatched:

Being a compassionate person.

        “I know what he’s like,” Kevin said. Neil looked at him, but Kevin was studying his hands. “Riko. If you want to talk.”

Fucking what.

        It was the most awkward and uncomfortable thing Kevin had ever said to him. Kevin was known for his talent, not his sensitivity. (…) That he tried at all was so unexpected Neil felt it like a balm to every bruised inch of his skin.

Oh my GOD.

HE’S TRYING, he’s trying to make Neil feel better, he just wants to help and to comfort him I’m gonna light myself the fuck on fire I can’t handle this.

These Kevin/Neil feels are ambushing me out of nowhere. I was almost over this dynamic, god damnit. What the fuck.

        “[Jean’s] father owed the Moriyamas a great deal. The master paid those debts in exchange for Jean’s presence on our court. He was property, nothing more. You are the same in their eyes. (…) I know it means he did not hold back.”

Wait – does this mean Jean initially got the same treatment that Neil just had to suffer through?

WELL, FUCK.

Jean Valjean has instantly risen in the ranks of my faves.

SWEET FRENCH SUMMER CHILD. YOU DID NOT DESERVE THIS WHAT THE FUCK.

No wonder he’s a (seemingly) heartless bitch now. Kill or be killed, I guess.

        “Were you ever going to tell [Coach that he’s your father]?”

        “I was going to when he signed me,” Kevin said. “I couldn’t. (…) [Tetsuji] has never raised a hand or voice against Coach before because Coach has never been a real threat to him. I didn’t know if a confession would change things. I couldn’t risk it.”

Kevin :’( protecting and caring for Wymack :’(( just like Wymack protected and cared for him :’((((((

Before I can get too emotional over this, though, the happy Kevin/Neil Honest Conversation™ is cut short by the arrival of everyone’s favourite murder maniac, minus the meds.

(Back at it again with the alliterations, y’all.)

        If Neil hadn’t known Andrew spent the last year and a half fiercely protective and territorial of Kevin, he’d think they were strangers. Andrew treated Kevin to a bored inspection, then flicked his fingers in dismissal.

Apparently, Andrew is not that different off his meds but continues to be a Stony Sinnamon Roll, Too Indifferent To This World, Too Dead Inside™. Well, bummer.

I don't know what I expected, since we did meet him sober before, but I think I thought when he'd be off his meds permanently he'd be... More? I guess? More of a person, I mean. Less walking void, and all that jazz.

Maybe he'll come around. Give the sinnamon roll some time.

Neil and the squad, finally complete again, drive back to campus, and as they get out we get a glimpse of something amazing we'll have more of later this chapter:

It's prime fucking Andreil time.

        [Neil] straightened and turned to find out Andrew had shifted closer. There was nowhere for Neil to stand except up against Andrew, but somehow Neil didn't mind. They'd been apart for seven weeks but Neil keenly remembered why he'd stayed. He remembered is unyielding, unquestioning weight that could hold him and all of his problems without breaking a sweat. For the first time in months he could finally breathe again. It was such a relief it was frightening; Neil hadn't meant to lean on Andrew so much.

ALL-FUCKING-RIGHT.

Alright alright alright. So NOT ONLY is this gay as shit as it is, and Neil is (whether he realises it or not) super fucking in love by this point, but - "Andrew had shifted closer", bitch, what.

Don't you dare tell me that boy isn't fucking infatuated with our favourite runaway drama queen.

In today's issue of The PSU Andreil Times: Heart-Eyed Little Shit Thinks He's Being Sneaky, Fails Miserably. More news on page 19.

When Neil is done waxing poetic about Andrew's ~strength~ and his ~*~unyiedling body~*~, he goes back to his dorm for part 2 of The Matt Confrontation:

        „Neil? We're here when you want to talk about it.“

        „I know.“

Is that... Neil... close to accepting actual help from outside...

Amazing.

        He knew just from looking at Matt that Matt would accept any truth Neil gave him right now, no matter how cruel or unbelievable. He'd done the right thing by going to Evermore; he was making the right choice in standing his ground here with the Foxes. (…) If [what happened] was the only way to keep his teammates safe from Riko's cruelty, it was an easy price to pay.

Okay ya brb while I drown myself in my own fucking tears.

FOX FAMILY. STOP RUINING MY FEELINGS. I'm supposed to be cool and witty here but I can't even do that because I'm just too emotional over this.

And the fun doesn't stop here, oh no.

Are you guys ready?

I know there are some people fidgeting excitedly in their seats right now because they know what's about to come up – the grand finale to a wonderful third-book-kick-off chapter:

The goddamn rooftop thing.

        Andrew turned to face him. „I'll take an explanation now.“

        „You couldn't ask for answers inside where it's warm?“ Neil asked.

Glad to see that even when faced with his (by now Confirmed™) crush, Neil still doesn't lose his sass.

But of course, Neil is not one to keep secrets from his murder boyfriend, and so he tells him of the Christmas Fuckery – which Andrew is decidedly not fucking liking, because of course Neil left Kevin's side and therefore kind of broke their deal.

Whoops.

        „Why did you go?“

        Neil didn't know if he could say it. Thinking about it was almost too much. Andrew was waiting, though, so Neil choked back his nausea. „Riko said if I didn't, Dr. Proust would-“

        Andrew clapped a hand over his mouth, smothering the rest of his words. (…) „Do not make the mistake of thinking I need your protection.“

Okay, but don't you, though?

Neil says it himself later on, and he's entirely correct: Andrew watches everyone's backs, who's gonna watch his?

He may be an expert in back-watching, but even the most back-watchiest back-watcher in the world can be out-back-watched, my dude. And who's gonna come rescue you then, hm? HMM??

Neil fucking will, of course.

        „The next time someone comes for you, stand down and let me deal with it. Do you understand?“

        „If it means losing you, then no.“

SHIT WHAT.

Since when are our boys so damn open with their love declarations?? This was so outta nowhere?? I'm fcukign?? Having a heart attack??

And following that – of course. The one, the only, the iconic:

        „I hate you,“ Andrew said casually. (…) „You were supposed to be a side effect of the drugs.“

        „I'm not a hallucination,“ Neil said, nonplussed.

        „You are a pipe dream,“ Andrew said.

BOY.

SHIT.

IM FCIKIGN FUCKKNGING FKUCKKVMFGNICHNNNKNX

The fact that Andrew thought his feelings (THAT ARE NOW CONFIRMED, I REPEAT, CONFIRMED ANDREW FEELINGS FOR NEIL HAVE BEEN SPOTTED) were a temporary thing, unreal, a side effect of being high out of his mind, is just like kind of, casually ruining my life. No biggie.

No fucking biggie.

Andrew quickly realizes he may have admitted too many feelings though, and in a feeble attempt to save his cold front and fragile masculinity, he throws Neil's keys off the roof, because just giving them back to him normally wouldn't have been Manly™ enough.

However Neil, once more, is able to show us that he can give as good as he gets (innuendo absolutely intended):

        Neil wasn't sure why he did it, but he plucked Andrew's cigarette off the sidewalk and stuck it between his lips. He tipped his head back to meet Andrew's unwavering gaze and tapped two fingers to his temple in Andrew's mocking salute. (…) It felt like a win, though Neil wasn't sure why.

Fucking hell.

These two are going to a) improve this last book exponentially and b) absolutely fucking ruin my life.

Nicki out.

As always: If you like what I do here and you want to help me continue writing fun things for you, please consider buying me a coffee. Every lil bit does absolutely help, getting me through uni and all that jazz. Thanks so much!!

[florrickandassociates]

TGF Thoughts: 1x06-- Social Media and Its Discontents

Thoughts under the cut... 

The Kings wrote this one, which always means it’s either a big episode or it contains a topic they’re passionate about. This episode falls into the latter category.

And Jim McKay directed. He’s directed many TGW episodes (and has directed at least one episode every season), and also lots of episodes of shows ranging in style from Rectify to The Americans.

The episode kicks off with a white dude in front of a solid green screen ranting about coding and how men are inherently superior to women. He is very mad about a change in Google’s algorithm that implies that women can invent things. Like, he’s seething. Over the idea that women could invent things. His resentment—and his complete lack of logical reasoning—would be almost comical if this weren’t based on a very real online harassment problem.

We cut away from the green screen to Neil Gross slapping a sheet of paper down on the RBK conference table and explaining that’s just one offensive post made on his social platforms.

The device used to illustrate the content of the posts is reminiscent of how the writers have brought cases to life in the past. Whenever a case requires a lot of talking, the writers like to bring in these illustrations to make the plot clearer and more captivating (see 3x07 and 6x18). In this case, they may also be trying to put faces to posts that would most likely (but not necessarily) be made anonymously.

Neil presents the RBK team with 4,758 “problematic” posts. What, is he only looking at the past hour?

Neil continues to comment on how cool it is that there are black lawyers… while only addressing Diane.

He brings a gift for the RBK team (no sign of it being RBKL yet…). It’s a Chummy T-Shirt with “Team Reddick, Boseman & Kolsted” written on it. I bought the Chummy shirt the CBS store offered and it’s super soft and comfortable. If CBS made this shirt—without the typo, of course—available, I would buy it too. Hear that, CBS? I am telling you I will spend more money on your product!

Barbara’s last name is misspelled on the shirt (it’s “Kolstad,” not “Kolsted’), and she notices immediately. When she points it out to Adrian, he just notes that Neil is bringing in $86 million a year. Wasn’t it $58 million last episode?

Neil needs a new Terms of Service agreement because two of his sites have become “like the Wild West of racism and sexism.” These sites are “Chummy Friends” which is Facebook-like (a way a real life Neil Gross would literally never describe his own site, but character Neil Gross has to because how else would we know what Chummy Friends is standing in for) and Scabbit, the Reddit clone from 5x09. (In 5x09, ChumHum definitely didn’t own Scabbit. Florrick/Agos represented ChumHum at the time, but they were the ones going up against Scabbit in court. I suppose they acquired it.)

Ah, one of the trolls is played by Ophelia’s boyfriend from Sweet/Vicious, which gives me a great opportunity to tell all of you to go watch Sweet/Vicious. Especially if the case this week made you feel angry and powerless. Go watch Sweet/Vicious.

Neil wants the posts gone on moral grounds… and because they’re hurting his business by scaring off advertisers.

“I notice only eyes for Diane,” Adrian comments to Barbara. This is true.

Neil sets a deadline: a new TOS by 5 pm. He then continues to talk about how cool it is that black lawyers exist and how it gives him hope, which he seems to see as a compliment but Lucca, Adrian, and Barbara all (correctly) read as patronizing.

As soon as Neil leaves, Diane suggests splitting into groups to tackle the problem. Barbara immediately overrules her and says they are going to sort the posts instead. (Why wouldn’t ChumHum have given them a digital copy of these posts? That would be much easier to sort.)

Adrian suggests making piles for racist posts, anti-Semitic posts, and threatening posts. He forgets misogynistic, which Diane immediately realizes (and which is a weird oversight I have trouble buying, given that Neil mentioned sexism twice in his introductory speech). Is this meant to be a comment on how Adrian thinks (I mean, you know how I feel about the way he talks to Barbara!)?

Barbara also asks what’s missing, so now I’m confused, because… duh? It wouldn’t just be a white woman who’s bringing up issues of misogyny, even if I bet Diane would list misogyny as an issue before she’d list racism.

Diane calls Maia onto the project through the glass wall. Maia is currently busy, not with work (…) but with a personal phone call to her father. “Dad, I’ve been working pretty hard lately, but, um, I’ll try,” she says. STOP THE PRESSES: MAIA’S BEEN WORKING HARD? Maia hasn’t been on a case that we’ve seen in three episodes, and she’s had a seemingly endless amount of time during the workday to investigate her own problems. Is this Maia’s idea of hard work? Hahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha

(Seriously though, SHOW, NOT TELL.)

“But the problem is, I’m an associate. I don’t control my own fate,” Maia says. Ah, so in her first two lines, she’s managed to announce that she’s working hard (when, obviously, she is not) and then inadvertently take my favorite Alicia theme about controlling one’s fate. I want to want your character on the show, Maia, but I kinda just want to buy you a one-way ticket to Mandyville. (To be clear, I don’t care that Maia happens to mention controlling one’s fate; Alicia doesn’t own that issue. I don’t like these lines because they remind me 1) of the ongoing issue I have with the way Maia’s being written and 2) of how much better the Kings did when they explored the same things with Alicia. I know they’re capable of writing better material than this.)

Maia agrees to go see her dad that night. She gets off the phone to go—GASP—do work.

In the conference room, Lucca’s reading a post about the abortion debate. Julius calls it “political” and I’m just wondering: what’s the difference between threats and politics? If your politics are to deprive people of their rights, and you’re stating them in the most abusive language possible, and directing it at a specific individual, how is that not a threat/harassment?

Lucca asks to call a vote on whether this is “political” or “threatening” (also, why can’t it be both?). Julius plays rank and reminds Lucca that she’s an associate and he’s a partner. Ugh. He’s just mad he’ll lose to someone he outranks. I love that Lucca always shares her opinions even when she’s not asked and she’s outranked. Some (like Julius) may not like it, but I admire her confidence. And, I love that she doesn’t speak up to show off or to prove her ideas are the best: she does it because she truly believes that what she has to say is important. (Even better: it usually is important.)

Diane calls a vote on another post, this one about rape. Barbara immediately says it’s a threat. Adrian says it’s not—he’s just making a distinction between a threat and misogyny. Lucca disagrees, vocally. Adrian says the person has to say “I am going to rape you” in order for it to be a threat, because otherwise it’s protected speech. Um, but, as Neil Gross already said, this is ChumHum’s call, not a First Amendment issue. Your right to be a dick on Chummy Friends isn’t protected by the Bill of Rights.

Diane reminds Adrian of this, and Julius goes, “Yes, but the terms have to be fair.” Do they? Legally? Or just for optics?

Maia speaks up to argue against Julius. “And if I’m attacked 50 times a day?” Maia says. Julius says that those who are the most harmed shouldn’t be judging speech. Maia takes out her phone and reads one of the abusive texts she’s been sent.

“But that’s about your parents’ scandal, right?” Julius argues, as though that makes a difference.

“My guess is yes. But sometimes they’re so busy discussing my rape that they, uh, they don’t have time to state their reasoning,” Maia retorts. Then the discussion shifts away from this.

A missed opportunity, I think, to have Maia be able to do more than say, “hey, I got a threat, and it was bad like all these others are also bad!” Has she perhaps noticed a pattern? Spoken with others who face the same threats? Read up on the issue? Picked up on other problems the TOS needs to address? Anything? This is Maia’s only contribution to the case.

Don’t get me wrong (especially since I’m always ragging on poor Maia, who hasn’t done anything other than be poorly written). I think it’s smart to bring Maia into this conversation. She has dealt with this problem personally (on Chummy sites or off), and that insight is valuable. She doesn’t need to save the day or have all the answers (she’s just a first year associate!), and I know that once they’re out of the brainstorming phase there’s not as much Maia can to do get involved. But this harassment stuff is the only thread we’ve gotten about Maia’s personal life that isn’t conspiracy drama about her parents (or the two appearances by Amy in the early episodes, #BringAmyBack), and now there’s a case about it, and the writers are only going to do the bare minimum to tie the two threads together? Maia jumps at the opportunity to help with this project. But is there more? Does she volunteer to help see it through, does it make her want to work on something else as a distraction, is she totally neutral about it to the point where people are whispering that shouldn’t she care, something, anything!?

This case doesn’t need to be a lens to develop Maia. I usually hate cases like that—the ones that only exist to parallel the main characters’ life. But if the show’s going to tackle the topic, why not loop Maia in to a greater degree? Especially after three consecutive episodes where she’s not doing any work. Just give her work to do. Tie her into the cases of the week, and not just the ones that she can relate to. Again, this was never a problem on TGW. If anything, the problem there was that Alicia was on too many important cases. That happened because TGW wasn’t an ensemble show, so, especially at first, everything had to relate to Alicia. TGF is an ensemble show, so it should be really easy for it to find the balance between “Maia’s on every case and everyone needs this one associate on every project” and “Maia never works.”

I KNOW I AM A BROKEN RECORD BUT I’LL STOP WHEN THE WRITERS DO.

Lucca gets a call from Colin and ducks out to take it. He wants to have lunch and also to know what color panties she’s wearing. She says she’s color blind—I think as a joke?

Why does “lunch” always mean “sex” on this show?

Colin goes to talk to his boss about Kresteva’s nonsense. The boss is more interested in his salad than in justice. His boss explains what Kresteva’s trying to do—scare off other firms from taking on police brutality cases by making an example out of RBK, even if that means letting Henry Rindell out on bail. Ah, this is what I suspected but at least we know the strategy for sure now.

Now Colin is “oversight head of whatever, we’ll figure out the title later.” He has no veto power, though. This boss seems fun.

Diane wants to ban every use of the n-word, which Adrian argues against because that would end up banning every rap lyric on the planet from being quoted, as well as Huckleberry Finn. Yeah, Diane. I was with you on the “adding a pile for misogynistic posts” but Adrian’s right here.

Barbara slips up and uses the word “tweets” instead of “posts.” But it’s okay; we all know we’re talking about Twitter here and not Chummy Friends.

I wonder if the writers contemplated calling it “Chummy Chums” or using the word “Chum” in it.

With no segue (deleted scene?), Julius begins talking about how there’s a problem: 50% of misogynistic tweets are sent by women. Okay, and…? How is that a problem? If women are being misogynistic and abusive, why wouldn’t they also be banned?

Lucca and Marissa chime in to say that study (which, naturally, they’ve both read) is bogus, because of how it defines misogyny.

Even Marissa is arguing against Julius. I love it. Diane taps Marissa’s arm like, “not your fight, drop off the coffee and leave” and Marissa, instead of quietly exiting, calls more attention to herself and says, “Yeah, I’m going.” Julius is all, “Who is that?!”

“I’m bored. Teach me something,” Marissa announces to Jay, who is working. People on this show have such odd ideas about their professional responsibilities. Or maybe it’s just Marissa.

Jay tells her to fuck off, I think. Marissa insists: she wants to learn how to investigate!

She asks Jay if he’s ever seen a dead body in person because he’s looking at crime scene photos. He says yes, six. “I’ve seen twelve,” Marissa replies. Jay didn’t expect that. Marissa doesn’t explain this happened during her time in the IDF. It surprises me we didn’t get more exposition there.

Anyway, this conversation makes Jay more receptive to Marissa’s questions, so he tells her she needs to get an investigator license unless she assists a licensed investigator. Marissa takes this as an invitation to join him.

Then Jax walks in and interrupts them and Marissa has to call Maia out of a meeting, because there are labor laws specifically in place for Maia Rindell that protect her from having to work for more than 15 consecutive minutes.

Maia and Jax go into a conference room to talk. There are three windows in the room’s window-wall, and there’s a great shot where Maia and Jax stand behind the window on the left and the window on the right, leaving a lot of distance between them.

Conspiracy stuff happens. Jax warns Maia against talking to her dad because he’ll be wearing a wire.

“I’ve got to get back to work,” Maia says. Do you really though?

(The answer is no, because we follow Maia through the hallways of the office and back to her desk, where she picks up her personal cell phone and phones her father to cancel their plans.)

(Rose is doing a very good job as Maia. I love the way her face changes when Henry insists that they can’t talk over the phone; it has to be in person. She takes it as an indication that Henry really might be wearing a wire, and begins to question everything she thought she knew… again.)

(I like the idea of this plot and the idea of Maia but the writing, ugh.)

More bickering about the TOS happens. I’m going to stop recapping this stuff because I think it’s pretty clear where I stand on it, and once we get to Felix… I just don’t have the time to break down why every argument he makes is wrong.

Colin texts Lucca to meet her now, so she smiles and then proposes a solution to the TOS dilemma: an appeal process. Users will be suspended after a certain number of harassing posts, a panel will review, and they’ll have a chance to appeal. I have questions about the logistics of this, but I like the idea. So does the rest of the room, Julius included. Adrian’s thrilled to have solved the problem well before the deadline.

The policy goes into effect IMMEDIATELY and without any notification (well, we don’t know that there wasn’t a new TOS agreement everyone had to click, but this would’ve been news) and begins to piss off/delight trolls. Now they get to troll lawyers!

Maia goes to meet with Elsbeth. This I’ll excuse because it seems pressing and affects the firm, so it’s kind of working.

Elsbeth doesn’t have furniture in her dentist’s office office, so there are only folding beach chairs.

I think Elsbeth’s “Ada” was designed just to fuck with me, because last week it interrupted an Alicia update and this week it’s playing a song by an artist called “Good Girl” because Elsbeth said, “Good Girl.”

Elsbeth wants Maia to feed her dad false information. Maia’s hesitant, but comes around to the idea. Elsbeth tells her to record the conversation if she does feed him the info.

Lucca and Colin are in bed together, and Colin asks Lucca out for dinner the next night. She wants to know if he means dinner or dinner dinner. The former just means “fucking” and the latter means a date (then fucking). Lucca, we deciphered this code (well, as it applies to “lunch”) during the Willicia affair, but it’s good to get confirmation.

Colin wants the date, and Lucca turns him down.

Ugh, fuck this Felix guy.

But, he reveals something interesting: Diane donated $18,860 to Hillary (which is well over the contribution limit, isn’t it? Where’s he getting this number?), and Barbara donated $23,000. Barbara donated more than Diane did. I’m surprised, but I really shouldn’t be, since a large donation lines up with what we already know about Barbara.

I don’t get how this panel works. They’re going to spend this much time on each Twitter Egg? All the name partners at RBK, for several days, hearing out every troll in person? Why did they institute a new TOS without a trial period or testing it out at all (with mock panels and etc)? This appeal system, in its current form, seems like a waste of time and money. And also weird, because… do you have to go to the RBK offices to appeal? Is there a standard procedure for who’s on the panels? For what happens during deliberations? Do you have to give up anonymity to appeal (that would make sense, tbh)? Are they a matter of public record?

For a show that comes around to the conclusion that we shouldn’t engage with trolls, it sure spends a lot of time on Felix’s antics.  

Now Diane and RBK are being harassed online. There’s a never-ending stream of hate. And somehow, in all that, Diane realizes that each account is keeping their harassment to 12 posts. This confuses me. Are their terms of service so vague they don’t tell you what would get you banned (probably; they could just say “continuous harassment” or something like that instead of revealing the exact number or that there is a number of harassing posts you can send)?

So, Adrian wonders if there’s a leak and asks Jay to investigate. Knowing that the trolls will probably talk to a white girl, he asks Marissa to help.

Lucca’s out at drinks with the dude whose ass we saw in the pilot, Zack. He’s her personal trainer. She doesn’t care about him at all, because the only reason she’s out with him at all is so that Colin can run into him and get jealous. Colin doesn’t. Awww, Lucca, you’re starting to care!

Maia goes to meet with her dad, and I wonder if she called first (which… would be the logical thing to do if she’s worried he’s wearing a wire, since he’d need to anticipate the conversation in order to actually be wearing the wire, right?) (unless “wearing a wire” means “making an iPhone recording” in this case?) because there’s a party going on when she arrives home.

At the end of the night, Maia and Henry have a chance to talk. Unfortunately, it plays out exactly as Elsbeth suggested it might, and Maia has to feed her father the lie about RBK.

This Ada thing is a running gag now. Hmm.  

Marissa goes to investigate and finds one of the trolls in person. Marissa compliments him, and suddenly he’s let his guard down and tells her everything she needs to know—namely that Felix has their transcripts.

Adrian asks Jay to investigate Julius as the source of the leak. Neither Diane nor Barbara seem to agree with this decision, but they don’t disagree strongly enough to argue.

Ugh, Felix.

I am not the hugest fan of these definitions that pop up in the mean posts. Not sure they’re necessary, nor am I sure those terms are what would confuse a viewer who didn’t already know exactly what this episode was about. Actually, who is the intended audience of this? It seems a little too widely discussed to be these writers’ usual material.

As Lucca, Barbara, and Adrian discuss what to do, Elsbeth arrives, carrying three Vera Bradley bags and grinning. “Oh my God, when did this law firm become a circus?” Barbara wonders.

Felix warns Diane that Neil Gross may have gone to her firm for the TOS for a reason.

Elsbeth updates Barbara, Adrian, and Lucca about the story she planted with Henry.

Marissa enjoys pretending to be someone she’s not for the purposes of investigating. Anyway, turns out Marissa and Jay are investigating Felix’s boyfriend.

Annnnd it works, and turns out the leak isn’t Julius… it’s ChumHum’s offices. Diane realizes it’s a set-up.

Marissa is alerted to a new problem: instead of using the n-word, trolls are now writing “Neil Gross.” Oh, no. (So they DID ban specific words?? I DON’T UNDERSTAND)

Marissa brings this to Diane and explains that one of the trolls really likes her. Diane is confused by how Marissa would even know the troll, and Marissa says, “It’s nothing. They’re easily confused when women offer them attention.” This is her best line since she told Elfman, “God, handsome men are so weak.”  

Lucca walks into Colin’s office, angry, and tells him she hates games and to knock it off. He’s not doing anything bad… he’s just not acting jealous, and that makes Lucca mad.

Colin figures it out, and realizes that Lucca’s plan didn’t work. “Let’s go,” she says. I can’t wait until these two just decide to become a couple and stop with the games.

Ugh, I am not here for this Lucca-kisses-and-fondles-Colin-while-he-drives-down-a-dark-and-twisty-road thing. I know these writers well enough to know the car isn’t going to crash, and so it just feels weird and unnecessary until Colin finally pulls over. It also feels exactly like the Kings’ (okay, mostly Robert King’s) idea of edgy sex, and there was more than enough of that on TGW. More 3x01 Willicia type scenes and fewer scenes that remind me of season 4 Kalinda, please and thanks.

Colin lives in a giant house. Why does one person need all those rooms?

Julius notices that someone’s gone through his things and storms into Adrian’s office (or maybe it’s Barbara’s office? They’re both there). Julius, understandably, isn’t happy. He says he was the most loyal employee they had, but no more: he knows he was targeted for this, and that people think differently of him now. He quits the firm and calls Andrew Hart, the lawyer who gave him his card in 1x03.

Diane has to inform Neil Gross about how his name is being used. He’s not pleased, and now he just wants this whole TOS thing to go away as fast as possible. What a shock.

Ugh, Felix. Diane says they’ll reinstate him and he’s sad he can’t keep trolling. Boo hoo.

Diane monologues at him about how he’s a clown and how he destroys his points by being racist and misogynist and how he’s a bully. It’s satisfying, but doesn’t really solve any problems. Like, is the show saying here that harassment is hard to control so it’ll never be controlled, so just don’t feed the trolls?

Diane confronts Neil about the leak, and he responds—even though she’s right—by calling Adrian and Barbara in for another meeting, one without Diane. Barbara is pleased with this: for the first time in weeks, her power doesn’t seem like it’s slipping away from her.

Lucca isn’t wearing high heels!

Colin shows up to RBK and meets with Lucca. He warns her to stay clear of RBK’s finances. Why? Because of the story Elsbeth planted. It’s sweet that Colin warns Lucca. She thanks him, genuinely, but she’s distracted… Maia’s right there, and Lucca knows this means Maia’s world is about to be destroyed even more.

[douchebagbrainwaves]

THE FOUNDER CONTROL

I have to read all the applications. These include college admissions, hiring and investment decisions, and of course the judgements made on children are of this type of mail. Representational art is only now recovering from the approval of both Hitler and Stalin. Founders think of startups as ideas, but in filtering too: for example, finding the recipient's email address base-64 encoded anywhere in a message is a very real element in the same way the movement of the earth. And for the same reason I did look under rocks as a kid: plain curiosity. He has noticed that theoretical knowledge is often acquired for its own sake. If we turn off our self-centeredness in that they assume that admissions committees must be all-seeing; self-centeredness combine to make us believe that every judgement of us is about us. But that might not be smart enough to start a startup, is start a consulting business you can then gradually turn into a product business. We currently fund about 40 companies a year, then on average you must be contributing at least x dollars a year worth of work per year for the company, because it would cause the founders' attitudes toward risk tend to be diametrically opposed: the founders, who have nothing, would prefer a 100% chance of $1 million to a 20% chance of $10 million, even though the other things they do may be very valuable, it's not that inaccurate to regard VCs as sources of money. The word startup dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages. A round. Our generation wants to get paid for it.

And for the first time they try fundraising. Conclude with some tactical advice. Rich people don't want to live in the suburbs. 06%? How often do you walk into a store, or call a company on the phone, with a feeling of dread in the back of your mind? It's hard to trick professors into letting you into grad school, you'll find a lot of work. If you plan to get rich by creating wealth, you have to go on? No, there will always be others ready to occupy it. There are a couple tests adults use. On the subway back from the airport she asked Why is everyone smiling? Another way to decrease the false positive rate is, because we're less likely to die from infections.

When people are bad at open-mindedness they don't know it. False positives I consider more like bugs. Joe Kraus says you should try charging customers right away. At first it may seem cool to get paid more by doing more. One could do a lot of questions, we all agree on this. If it's low enough, it won't pay for spammers to send it, and show why most but not all should be ignored. If you took ten people at random out of the way schools are organized is that we all get trained to talk even when we have nothing to say. But angel investors like big successes too. Now Palo Alto is suburbia, but then it was a particularly prestigious line of work, or the company will be spending more than it makes, and will go out of business. There is no manufacturing to confuse the issue. One reason we don't see them is a phenomenon I call schlep blindness.

And whichever side wins, their ideas will also be considered to have triumphed, as if the active ingredient of Silicon Valley is not that Intel or Apple or Google have offices there, but that you should never shrink from it if it's on the path to something great. It's always alarming when two people trying the same experiment get widely divergent results. If you own rental property, but let's suppose there were management companies that could do it by just writing some clever software, putting it on a server somewhere, and watching the money roll in—without ever having to talk to users, and then gradually make them more general. Suppose a company makes some kind of consumer gadget. But if you're worried about this, you're probably not doing anything new, and dignity is merely a sort of Heisenberg uncertainty effect: I only got it because I don't like the uncertainty. But when they do notice startups in other towns they prefer them to move. I never felt that in Boston. What makes good food? Yet another backup and syncing thing, they all thought. You'd expect big startup ideas to be attractive, but actually they tend to repeat the url, and someone including a url in a legitimate mail wouldn't do that. A good scientist, in other words, does not merely ignore their objections, but push aggressively in that direction. If a salesman wants to work harder, he can pay himself nothing.

Till about 2002 you could safely misinterpret it as promising that clock speeds would double every 18 months. Many of our taboos are rooted deep in the past. If you use all the tokens you'll tend to miss longer spams, the type where someone tells you their life story up to the present have been wasting their time. If you took a nap in your office in a big company. The ball you need to know in this phase is how to build things people want. Suppose you own a beat-up old car. The style of writing is certainly different, though it may take multiword filtering to catch that. You need to work at a cool little company or research lab, you'll do better to learn Ruby on Linux. A confident group doesn't need taboos to protect it. Though the idea of switching seems thinkable to me.

7636 free 0. For the foreseeable future, people will want ever more material wealth, so there is no way they'd have grown so much if they'd spent that year working at Microsoft, or even who the founders should be at least 23, and that alone is a black hole. I began with, that it doesn't matter much; it will change anyway. The odds of finding smart professors in the math department. This side of the mountain is a nice gradual slope. Maybe the only answer is a central list of domains advertised in spams. And erring on the side of conservatism is still erring.

What I've just described is an acquisition by a public company now. Blasphemy, sacrilege, and heresy were such labels for a good part of western history, as in a lot of time trying to master. For example, when I give a talk I usually write it out beforehand. Will statistical filtering actually get us to that point? They'd be far more useful when combined with some time living in a country where the language is spoken. The whole idea of focusing on optimization is counter to the general trend in software development for the last several decades. Then would-be founders can use this as a checklist to examine their own feelings. Startups, like mosquitos, tend to involve existing code, and often require you to figure out what you could have done to catch them. Indeed, the arrival of new fashions makes old fashions easy to see, because they get the wrong answers on tests.

But more importantly, by selecting that side as the victor. A programmer can sit down in front of your screen and pretend to. We like children to seem innocent. An optimization marketplace would be a cheap way to make a convincing case for becoming huge, you have to get good grades or want to be a promising experiment that's worth funding to see how constant the threat of failure was—not just for other people that you need to get yourself in a staircase. I should use Holland as an example of a useful, general idea, consider that of the controlled experiment. That's the difference between the 20th and 21st best players is less than the measurement error. They need to do is be part of a small town. The all-or-nothing proposition. So I decided I'd pay close attention to what he said, to learn how to deal with this is to treat some as more interesting than others.

Thanks to Sam Altman, Trevor Blackwell, Sarah Harlin, Joel Lehrer, Patrick Collison, Jessica Livingston, and Neil Rimer for sparking my interest in this topic.

[myattorneyusa]

Overview of Scotus Nominee Neil Gorsuch's Background and Record

INTRODUCTION 

On January 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Judge Neil M. Gorsuch of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to the United States Supreme Court [see blog]. Judge Gorsuch was nominated to fill the seat that has been vacant since the death of former Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016 [see blog on Justice Scala's career]. In this article, I will offer an overview of Judge Gorsuch's career and known positions, with an emphasis on issues that relate to the administration of the immigration laws. In conclusion, I will explain why Judge Gorsuch is an exceptional pick for the vacant Supreme Court seat and why the Senate should move expeditiously to confirm him. 

BACKGROUND 

Judge Gorsuch recently submitted his responses to a questionnaire issued by the Senate Judiciary Committee [PDF version]. This committee will vote whether to refer the nomination to the full Senate following a hearing at which Judge Gorsuch will appear. We will rely on the questionnaire and other sources to examine Judge Gorsuch's background in brief. 

Judge Gorsuch was born on August 29, 1967. At 49 years of age, he is the youngest individual nominated to the Supreme Court since now-Justice Clarence Thomas was nominated at 43 years of age in 1991. 

Judge Gorsuch obtained his undergraduate degree from Columbia University in 1988. He procured his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1991. If confirmed, Judge Gorsuch will be the sixth Justice on the Court to have graduated from Harvard Law School. Judge Gorsuch subsequently studied at Oxford University, receiving a Doctor of Philosophy in Law degree in 2004. 

After completing Harvard Law School, Judge Gorsuch clerked for Judge David B. Sentelle of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1991-1992. Judge Gorsuch then clerked for Justice Byron White and Justice Anthony Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court from 1993-1994. If confirmed, Gorsuch will be the only Justice to have clerked for one of his colleagues (Justice Kennedy). 

Subsequent to his clerkships, Judge Gorsuch worked in private practice from 1998-2005. From 2005-2006, he worked in the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) as a Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General. In 2006, President George W. Bush nominated Gorsuch to replace Judge David M. Ebel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Gorsuch was confirmed by the United States Senate by voice vote with no registered opposition.[1] Judge Gorsuch has served on the Tenth Circuit since he was confirmed in 2006. 

In an interesting side-note, Judge Gorsuch's mother — Anne Gorsuch Buford — served as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for two years under President Ronald Reagan. 

INTERESTING WRITINGS 

Before examining Judge Gorsuch's record on the bench, it is work noting two pieces of writing that he completed prior to being confirmed to serve on the Tenth Circuit. 

The subject of Judge Gorsuch's research at Oxford University was assisted suicide. After completing his dissertation, Judge Gorsuch published a book titled The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (Princeton University Press 2006). In the book, he examined assisted suicide in great detail and assessed the moral and legal arguments for and against it. The issues touched on in this book are outside the scope of what I will focus on in this post, but it is a noteworthy book that is likely to come up in Judge Gorsuch's confirmation hearings. In the book, he argued against assisted suicide, concluding, “All human beings are intrinsically valuable, and the intentional taking of human life by living persons is wrong.”[2] 

In an article more relevant to the scope of what we will be examining, Gorsuch penned an article for the conservative National Review in 2005 — prior to taking the bench — titled Liberals'N'Lawsuits.[3] In the article, Gorsuch opined that “American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than on elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda…” Gorsuch contrasted this with relying on the judiciary only in “extraordinary” cases. He argued that such reliance by the left on the judiciary to advance policy objectives “is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary.” Part of the problem, he noted, was that once judges rule that a policy is unconstitutional, one side wins and the other side loses, which robs society “of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.” Furthermore, Gorsuch noted that in his opinion relying on the judiciary to advance policy objectives leads to the politicization of the judiciary. In conclusion, he observed that, during the New Deal, liberals recognized that the “elected branches are generally the appropriate engines of social reform,” and he praised Democratic-appointed judges of that era for arguing for “judicial restraint and deference to the right of Congress to experiment with economic and social policy.” 

In an op-ed published recently in the New York Daily News, noted lawyer and legal scholar Ilya Somin expressed concerns with Gorsuch's National Review article.[4] Somin praised many aspects of Judge Gorsuch's record on the bench. However, referring to the opinions voiced in the article, Somin criticized Gorsuch's praise for the Democratic-appointed judges who, during the New Deal period, employed “judicial restraint and deference to the right of Congress to experiment with economic and social policy.” As Somin notes, “Liberal jurists of that period advocated near-total abdication of judicial enforcement of limits on federal power.” Somin acknowledged that it is possible that Judge Gorsuch “did not intend to embrace the full implications” of his statements (including those advocating relying on courts only in “extraordinary” circumstances). However, Somin argued that, in light of threats that Somin sees with President Trump's positions on a variety of issues, Judge Gorsuch's stated position should be taken “both seriously and literally,” even granting his strong record on the Tenth Circuit. 

I share some of Somin's concerns with Judge Gorsuch's article in the National Review, and I believe it is a worthy topic for the confirmation hearings. However, it is important to note that the article was written to concur with an argument that liberals should look for policy solutions to policy debates rather than to the judiciary, thus suggesting that the matters addressed — in Gorsuch's opinion — presented pure policy questions rather than legal issues appropriate for judicial review. However, he did indeed go beyond that in seeming to advocate excessive judicial deference to the political branches. Fortunately, as we shall examine, Judge Gorsuch's record on the bench and his general approach to the law suggest that he is more willing than he suggested in that article to exercise judicial review where it is warranted. 

JUDGE GORSUCH'S LEGAL PHILOSOPHY 

Judge Gorsuch has often been compared to Justice Antonin Scalia in his legal philosophy. He is known as being a textualist, meaning that he seeks to analyze statutes by analyzing the plain meaning of the text, to the exclusion of things such as legislative history and intent. We will see these principles at play in a small selection of Judge Gorsuch's written decisions. 

Judge Gorsuch wrote a law article upon the death of Justice Scalia [PDF version], in which the stated that Justice Scalia had reminded judges “[t]hat judges should … strive … to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to the text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be-not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences that they believe might serve society best.”[5] Judge Gorsuch disagreed with criticisms of Justice Scalia's legal philosophy to the effect that he had focused too much on process and not enough on results. Judge Gorsuch described himself as “an adherent to the view that outcomes (ends) do not justify methods (means).[6] Judge Gorsuch further described judicial power as “[n]ot a forward-looking but backward-looking authority.” By this, he explained, he meant that judicial power was not for “making new rules of general applicability, but a means for resolving disputes about what existing law is and how it applies to discrete cases and controversies.”[7] 

Although it is never a given how an individual will rule once he or she is on the Supreme Court, Judge Gorsuch's principles of legal interpretation bear strong similarities to those of Justice Scalia, although they may differ on several key issues that we will examine. On the current court, Judge Gorsuch's textualist approach bears similarities on the surface to the approach of Justice Clarence Thomas. 

JUDGE GORSUCH ON THREE AREAS RELATING TO IMMIGRATION 

Federal judges handle cases from all areas of law, and the vast majority of issues do not implicate the immigration laws. The three areas through which federal judges have the most significant effect on immigration law by their rulings are criminal appeals, immigration appeals, and administrative law decisions. In the following sections, we will examine a few of Judge Gorsuch's opinions in these areas and look for clues as to how he may rule on the Supreme Court. 

However, it is important to note that, as a circuit court judge, Judge Gorsuch has been bound by Supreme Court precedent. That means if the Supreme Court has previously spoken to a legal issue that is before the Tenth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit is required to follow the Supreme Court precedent. Conversely, the Supreme Court may reconsider any prior precedent and revise or overrule it. Thus, as a justice of the Supreme Court, Gorsuch would have significantly more latitude. 

The question faced by a Supreme Court Justice in general and in any given case is ultimately the degree of his or her acceptance of stare decisis, that is, determining cases in accord with precedent. It is hard to say at this time how Judge Gorsuch would balance the interest in stare decisis in deciding a case when he believes a prior decision — or line of decisions — was wrong. This is one area where the views of two of the Supreme Court's most well-known textualists — Justices Scalia and Thomas — differed. With regard to stare decisis. Justice Scalia was generally more deferential to the principle of stare decisis than Justice Thomas. 

CRIMINAL LAW 

Eric Citron of Scotusblog described Judge Gorsuch as believing that “criminal laws should be clear and interpreted in favor of defendants even if it hurts government prosecutions (like Scalia).”[8] In the immigration context, Supreme Court precedent on how to interpret and apply criminal statutes has a significant effect on aliens with criminal convictions. Please see our articles on Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) [see article] and Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. __ [see article] for two examples of cases where the Supreme Court created precedent for reading federal sentencing enhancement statutes and criminal statutes in a manner that was generally favorable to aliens with criminal convictions. 

One of Judge Gorsuch's most notable pieces of writing from the bench came in United States v. Games-Perez, 667 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2012) [PDF version]. 

The question regarded the requirements for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) makes it unlawful for an individual “who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to “ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2) states that “[w]hoever knowingly violates subsection … (g) … of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.” 

A three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit (which included Judge Gorsuch), had found that the government was not required to establish that an individual knew that he or she had been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year in order to secure a conviction under the relevant provisions. Judge Gorsuch concurred in the judgment because he felt bound by precedent, but he expressed his issues with the Tenth Circuit precedent and urged reconsideration. 

The appellant made an en banc request asking for a hearing from the entire Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit denied rehearing en banc 6-4. Judge Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the 4 judges who dissented from denial of rehearing en banc. Interestingly, Judge Gorsuch had been on the 3-judge panel that decided the case initially, and concurred in judgment because he felt bound by precedent, but expressed his issues with the Tenth Circuit precedent (and urged reconsideration) in his concurring opinion. 

In his dissent from denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Gorsuch argued that 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2) requires a showing of “knowingly violat[ing] [18 U.S.C.] 922(g), a statute that in turn prohibits (1) a convicted felon (2) from possessing a firearm (3) in interstate commerce.” He took issue with the Tenth Circuit's finding that the government was only required to establish that the appellant had knowingly possessed a firearm and not that he had known that he was a convicted felon as defined in 18 U.S.C. 922(g). Wryly, Judge Gorsuch stated that the Tenth Circuit precedent the Court had relied on interpreted “Congress's mens rea requirement as leapfrogging over the first statutorily specified element and touching down at the second listed element — def[ying] grammatical gravity and linguistic logic.” Judge Gorsuch cited to the Supreme Court decision in Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556, U.S. 646, 650 (2009) [PDF version], stating that “when a criminal statute introduces the elements of a crime with the word 'knowingly,' that mens rea requirement must be applied 'to all the subsequently listed [substantive] elements of the crime'” (emphasis and alliteration added by Judge Gorsuch). Judge Gorsuch also criticized both the Government's and the Tenth Circuit's reliance on legislative history, stating that “[t]he problem with all this is that hidden intentions never trump expressed ones.” 

Judge Gorsuch's concurrence is highly interesting and worth reading in full. It provides a window into how he reads criminal statutes, and it offers evidence that he may often do so in a way that favors criminal defendants. 

In a side-note, we recently posted an article about Voisine v. United States, 579 U.S. (2016) [see article], which addressed the related section 922(g)(9) (statute that prohibits firearm ownership for a crime of domestic violence). 

JUDGE GORSUCH ON IMMIGRATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

In 2015 — well before we knew that Judge Gorsuch would be nominated to the Supreme Court — we wrote a comprehensive article on a decision penned by Judge Gorsuch, De Niz Robles v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2015) [see article]. On January 23, 2017, I posted a follow-up blog on Judge Gorsuch's decision on a similar issue in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2016) [see blog]. 

We have already covered both of these decisions in great detail on this site, and I encourage you read our full articles for detailed analysis. In this section, I will address the decisions in brief while providing commentary on a passage Judge Gorsuch wrote about De Niz Robles in the law article he wrote after the death of Justice Scalia. 

Both cases addressed whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) could apply its precedent decision in the Matter of Briones, 24 I&N Dec. 355 (BIA 2007) [PDF version], retroactively to a case in which the Tenth Circuit had reached a different conclusion prior to the BIA decision. 

A key issue in both of these cases is that of Chevron deference. Under the Supreme Court decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 847 (1984) [PDF version], courts are generally required to defer to an administrative agency's reading of a statute where the statute is ambiguous and the agency's reading of the statute is reasonable. The Supreme Court decision in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005) [PDF version] extended deference to administrative agencies in the face of contrary judicial precedent, provided that the statute in question is ambiguous. 

In both cases, Judge Gorsuch followed Chevron and Brand X in deferring to the Board's decision in the Matter of Briones, but he found that neither allowed the Board to apply Briones retroactively when there was contrary Tenth Circuit precedent. In his concurring opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela, Judge Gorsuch expressed his qualms with both Chevron and Brand X — and the threat he saw in their vesting too much power in the Executive branch — in great detail. Both decisions are worth reading in full — along with our articles — as they are instructive about administrative law issues and provide a window into Judge Gorsuch's thinking on one of the most important issues that will come before the Supreme Court. 

In Judge Gorsuch's article written upon the death of Justice Scalia, he described the De Niz Robles case as follows: “an executive agency acting a faux-judicial proceeding and exercising delegated legislative authority purported to overrule an existing judicial declaration about the meaning of existing law and apply its new legislative rule retroactively to already completed conduct. Just describing what happened here might be enough to make James Madison's head spin.”[9] Judge Gorsuch laid out the issues that he believed were at stake: “combining what are by design supposed to be separate and distinct legislative and judicial powers poses a grave threat to our values of personal liberty, fair notice, and equal protection.” 

On the issue of administrative law, Judge Gorsuch's views may be distinguishable from not only those of Justice Scalia but also from those of the other Justices sitting on the court currently (note that Justice Thomas was the author of Brand X). However, despite Justice Scalia's acceptance of Chevron, he did read it more narrowly than did most of his colleagues, leading Citron to suggest that “given [Gorsuch's and Scalia's] parallel commitments to textualism and their parallel understandings of the relative roles of agencies and courts, even this seems like a bridgeable divide between Gorsuch and the justice he might replace.” 

Judge Gorsuch offered an interesting opinion dissenting from rehearing en banc in United States v. Nichols, 784 F.3d 666 (10th Cir. 2015) [PDF version], addressing the non-delegation doctrine in the criminal law context from the standpoint of its potential danger to the separation of powers and individual liberty.[10] 

Please see our article about Judge Gorsuch's opinion in Montano-Vega v. Holder, 721 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2015) [PDF version], to read about another interesting precedent decision by Judge Gorsuch on immigration law. 

CONCLUSION 

With the nomination of Judge Gorsuch, President Trump fulfilled his campaign promise to choose a worthy replacement to Justice Scalia for the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch has impeccable credentials, and his textualist approach to reading law will be a valuable addition to the Court that arguably only has one Justice — Justice Thomas — who is a full-spectrum textualist and originalist. As Josh Blackman wrote, “[a]s a committed originalist, sound jurist and brilliant writer, Gorsuch will serve as a worthy intellectual heir to Justice Scalia.”[11] 

In the immigration context, Judge Gorsuch's record suggests that he may read the law in a way that would be favorable to aliens in the criminal law context. Judge Gorsuch's views on administrative law and judicial deference have the potential to be his most significant contribution to the bench, if they gain traction with his colleagues. I encourage the Senate to confirm Judge Gorsuch expeditiously, and I look forward to seeing him on the Supreme Court. 

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Mulkern, Anne C., “Gorsuch confirmed for 10th Circuit,” denverpost.com, (Jul. 20, 2006)

Hawkins, Derek, “Neil Gorsuch wrote the book on assisted suicide. Here's what he said.” washingtonpost.com, (Feb. 1, 2017)

Gorsuch, Neil, “Liberals'N'Lawsuits,” nationalreview.com, (Feb. 7, 2005)

Somin, Ilya, “Supreme Court pick Neil Gorsuch has troubling views on federalism and judicial review,” nydailynews.com, (Jan. 31, 2017)

Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch, 2016 Sumner Canary Memorial Lecture: Of Lions and Bears, Judges and Legislators, and the Legacy of Justice Scalia, 66 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 905 (2016), 906

Id. 906

Id. 910

Citron, Eric, “Potential nominee profile: Neil Gorsuch,” scotusblog.com, (Jan. 13, 2017)

Gorsuch, Memorial Lecture, 915

Feder, David, “The Administrative Law Originalism of Neil Gorsuch,” yalerjreg.com, (Nov. 21, 2016)

Blackman, Josh, “My Take in Politico on Judge Gorsuch: 'The Kennedy Whisperer,;” joshblackman.com, (Feb. 1, 2017) 

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

[dareread]

Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, is one of the most respected conservative legal intellectuals on the federal bench. Like Justice Antonin Scalia, he has the ability and the ambition to lead America’s constitutional debate by following a clear vision of textualism and originalism, based on the premise that judges should separate their political from their constitutional conclusions.

But unlike the Hamiltonian Justice Scalia, the more Jeffersonian Gorsuch seems more willing to return to constitutional first principles and to question the constitutional underpinnings of the post-New Deal administrative state. At the same time, he clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy and seems more likely than any other nominee to persuade Kennedy to vote with the conservatives rather than the liberals as long as he remains on the Court. And his record suggests a willingness to transform the law and to enforce constitutional limitations on the excesses of Congress and the president. For all of these reasons, Gorsuch’s appointment gives conservatives reason to celebrate, and liberals reason to fear, that Trump couldn’t have made a more effective choice.

There’s no doubt, however, that the principled Gorsuch would be willing to rule against Trump or a Republican Congress if he felt they exceeded their constitutional bounds—if Trump issued executive orders that clashed with the text of federal immigration laws, for example, or if Congress passed laws banning abortions that don’t involve crossing state lines that exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce. As Gorsuch said at the White House while accepting Trump’s nomination, “a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge.” And because of Gorsuch’s appealing and collegial personality and temperament, he could certainly join with the liberal and conservative justices on the Roberts Court to form a united front against clear and present threats to the First Amendment or to the constitutional order. At a time when progressives are rediscovering the virtues of Madisonian checks on populist excesses and federal power, Gorsuch may be precisely the kind of bipartisan Jeffersonian justice the country needs.

The best way to understand Gorsuch’s potential to transform the law and to enforce constitutional limitations on federal and state laws is to read his book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, published in 2006. The fact that Gorsuch wrote it in the first place shows his intellectual ambition. After graduating from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, clerking on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (where I got to know and admire him as a clerk the same year), and then going on to clerk for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy, Gorsuch thrived for a decade at the Washington law firm of Kellogg Huber. He then left his high-paying partnership for Oxford University, which he attended on a Marshall Scholarship, and completed his doctorate with John Finnis, the great scholar of natural law.

Gorsuch’s doctoral thesis, which became the basis for his book, makes a deontological argument—one based on duties rather than consequences. It offers an extended objection to the consequentialist view of law offered by scholars ranging from the pragmatist Richard Posner to the libertarian Richard Epstein. His approach to the issue is instead “premised on the idea that all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

In praising Gorsuch after his appointment was announced, Republican Senator Mike Lee, who as an attorney argued before Gorsuch, emphasized how carefully he reads the footnotes in briefs. And indeed, Gorsuch in his book takes Posner to task for misreading footnotes and misrepresenting data. He also criticizes Epstein for embracing a “libertarian theory [that] tends not merely toward legalizing assisted suicide for the terminally ill, but also toward legalization of assisted suicide, euthanasia, and consensual homicide for all competent adults, regardless of their physical condition or reasons for action.”

Gorsuch roots his conclusion in practical experience and natural law, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence:

Don’t we sometimes respect persons and things because of what they are, not because of what they can do for us? Indeed, our entire political system is premised on the notion and acceptance of such basic, fundamental rights (and wrongs), as reasoned from human experience. Our Declaration of Independence begins the substance of its work with the bold assertion that certain ‘truths’ about human nature are indeed ‘self-evident,’ that these self-evident truths include the impulse for life and the value of liberty, and all that follows in the Declaration, the whole purpose pose and ideal of government as envisioned by the founding document of our country, is to establish a government that is aimed at securing and protecting what our founders considered to be self-evident human rights and truths.

Unlike Clarence Thomas, who insisted in his confirmation hearings that his musings about natural law and the Declaration of Independence had no constitutional implications, Gorsuch stresses:

Perhaps the most profound indicium of the innate value of human life, however, lies in our respect for the idea of human equality. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws to all persons; this guarantee is replicated in Article 14 of the European Convention and in the constitutions and declarations of rights of many other countries. This profound social and political commitment to human equality is grounded on, and an expression of, the belief that all persons innately have dignity and are worthy of respect without regard to their perceived value based on some instrumental scale of usefulness or merit. We treat people as worthy of equal respect because of their status as human beings and without regard to their looks, gender, race, creed, or any other incidental trait—because, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, we hold it as ‘self-evident’ that ‘all men (and women) are created equal’ and enjoy ‘certain unalienable Rights,’ and ‘that among these are Life.’

What are the constitutional implications of Gorsuch’s Jeffersonian view of natural law? He presents his “inviolability-of-life principle” as a modest suggestion “that current laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia largely should be retained,” calling it “the clearest, most consistent secular explanation and defense for our current regime that proscribes intentional killings but does not seek to enforce any broader rule interfering with patient autonomy and choice.” Gorsuch stresses that “my argument, based on secular moral theory, is consistent with the common law and long-standing medical ethics” and he emphasizes that “I do not seek to address publicly authorized forms of killing like capital punishment and war.”

Still, in the concluding chapter of his book, he suggests that he might go further in recognizing a constitutionally enforceable right to life than Justice Scalia, who, in the Gonzales v. Oregon case in 2006, dissented from the Court’s 6 to 3 decision that Attorney General John Ashcroft could not enforce federal drug laws to block Oregon’s assisted-suicide law, which allows doctors to prescribe life-ending drugs to terminally ill patients. Scalia’s dissent was based on the principle that judges should defer to the executive’s interpretation of federal statutes. This is known as Chevron deference, after a 1984 case called Chevron, which requires judicial deference to interpretations of laws by executive agencies unless the interpretations are unreasonable.

Gorsuch emphasizes, however, that “it remains to be seen whether [the Court might] … recognize a constitutional right that trumps at least some state legislation against assisted suicide.” And he suggests that he might be inclined to recognize such a right.

“Oregon’s decision to make a legal discrimination based on physical health (the terminally ill versus everyone else) seems a candidate for heightened review,” he argues, just like distinctions based on race or gender. “This especially so given that Oregon’s law expressly implicates a fundamental right—that is, the scope of the right to life.”

As a result, Gorsuch suggests that state laws legalizing assisted suicide not only may be preempted by federal law—they may also be unconstitutional. “What rational basis is there for treating the lives of those who are diagnosed as having less than six months to live any different from any number of other groups of persons—such as the patient suffering irremediable pain, the quadraplegic,” an infant with Down syndrome, or an “incompetent Alzheimer’s patient? Can we rationally single out just the ‘terminally ill’?,” Gorsuch asks. “Whatever the doctrinal rubric ultimately employed to review Oregon's discrimination between terminally ill and healthy persons, a nontrivial legal argument can be made that the law fails to pass muster.”

Although Gorsuch’s book does not address abortion, a holding that fetuses, at a certain point in their development, have a constitutionally protected right to life could lead to a scaling back or overturning of Roe v. Wade. As Ed Whelan, a former Scalia clerk and Justice Department lawyer, notes in responding to an email sent out last week by the late Phyllis Schlafly’s son Andy, urging pro-lifers to protests against Gorsuch’s nomination because he is not sufficiently pro-life, “I don’t know what Schlafly means by his claim that Gorsuch ‘has said nothing publicly pro-life.’ If declaring in writing that ‘human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong’ (page 157 of his book) doesn’t count, then what does?”

Ultimately, whether Gorsuch would be inclined, like Scalia, to overturn Roedepends on his conception of the weight of judicial precedent. Along with 12 of the top liberal and conservative appellate judges in the country, Gorsuch contributed to one of the leading treatises on the question, Law of Judicial Precedent, published last year. But Supreme Court justices on both sides of the aisle are notoriously free to ignore hornbook maxims.

One way of gauging Gorsuch’s views about precedent is to ask whether he is a champion of judicial engagement, like Justice Clarence Thomas, who will vote to overturn any law he thinks is inconsistent with the original understanding of the Constitution. (Scalia said that he, unlike Thomas, wouldn’t do that because “I’m not a nut.”) Or is Gorsuch a champion of bipartisan judicial restraint in the mode of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes? (Roberts invoked Holmes in justifying his votes to uphold laws mandating health insurance and banning gay marriage).

Gorsuch’s speeches don’t answer the question definitively, but it’s possible to read them in a way that defends judicial engagement—that is a vigorous willingness to enforce constitutional limitations on the presidency, Congress, and the administrative state. For conservatives who argue that the Court needs another Thomas, not a Scalia, Gorsuch may be the answer to their prayers. In a 2016 speech on Scalia’s legacy, titled “Of Lions and Bears, Judges and Legislators, and the Legacy of Justice Scalia,” Gorsuch endorses “the great project of Justice Scalia’s career [which] was to remind us of the differences between judges and legislators.” But he emphasizes that judges should not hesitate to enforce constitutional limitations on legislative excesses, in the interest of protecting liberty. “It seems to me that the separation of legislative and judicial powers isn’t just a formality dictated by the Constitution,” he declared. “To the founders, the legislative and judicial powers were distinct by nature and their separation was among the most important liberty-protecting devices of the constitutional design, an independent right of the people essential to the preservation of all other rights later enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments.”

Gorsuch’s opinions support the view that he would enforce constitutional limitations on the regulatory state even more vigorously than Scalia. In Caring Hearts v. Burwell in 2015, Gorsuch held that a federal agency was wrong to apply new regulations to punish an individual for conduct allowed by the law in force at the time. “This case has taken us to a strange world where the government itself—the very ‘expert’ agency responsible for promulgating the ‘law’ no less—seems unable to keep pace with its own frenetic lawmaking,” Gorsuch wrote vividly. “A world Madison worried about long ago, a world in which the laws are ‘so voluminous they cannot be read’ and constitutional norms of due process, fair notice, and even the separation of powers seem very much at stake.” Gorsuch continued by criticizing the excessive delegation of legislative power to executive regulatory agencies, showing sympathy for a doctrine known as the non-delegation doctrine, which the Supreme Court has been reluctant to enforce since the New Deal era. “Executive agencies today are permitted not only to enforce legislation but to revise and reshape it through the exercise of so-called ‘delegated’ legislative authority,” Gorsuch wrote. “[A]ll this delegated legislative activity by the executive branch raises interesting questions about the separation of powers ... [including] troubling questions about due process and fair notice—questions like whether and how people can be fairly expected to keep pace with and conform their conduct to all this churning and changing ‘law.’”

While Scalia championed the idea that courts should defer to executive agencies under the Chevron doctrine, Gorsuch has called for the reconsideration of Chevron. In Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch in 2016, Gorsuch wrote a separate concurrence to his own majority opinion discussing the growth of the regulatory state and arguing that Supreme Court cases like Chevron and Natl Cable Assn v. Brand X have “permit[ted] executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that [is] difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design.” In light of the founders’ vision of a system of separated powers, Gorsuch argued, the Supreme Court ought to reconsider its doctrines of deference:

There’s an elephant in the room with us today. We have studiously attempted to work our way around it and even left it unremarked. But the fact is Chevron and Brand X permit executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth.

As Eric Citron concludes in his analysis of Gorsuch’s record for SCOTUSblog, “Gorsuch definitely has a different take from Scalia on the administrative state—one that grants it less power, and so accords even more closely with the conservative conception of small government. Indeed, this is an area in which Gorsuch is plainly a thought leader, expressing judicial sentiments many conservatives with similar concerns have rarely voiced, and which even Scalia might have bristled at.” Gorsuch’s arguments are closer to the ones Justice Thomas offered in Michigan v. EPA, where Thomas insisted that the administrative state “wrests from the Courts the ultimate interpretative authority to ‘say what the law is,’ and hands it over to the Executive ... As in other areas of our jurisprudence concerning administrative agencies, we seem to be straying further and further from the Constitution without so much as pausing to ask why.”

It’s true, as the University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck told CNN, that if Gorsuch helped to persuade the Court to reconsider the Chevron doctrine, the scope of the regulatory state could change dramatically. “If he were to form part of a majority to scale back that principle, it would be a major sea change in the relationship between the executive branch and the courts, and one that would likely impose significant new constraints on the scope of federal regulatory authority on all topics—from immigration and criminal law enforcement to environmental protection, consumer product safety, and drug regulation,” Vladeck said. On the other hand, this is an age when progressives would like courts to closely scrutinize President Trump’s decisions to regulate, or not to regulate, in areas like immigration and the environment, to ensure they comply with congressional intent. In these cases, by hewing to the intent of laws passed by Congress decades ago, Gorsuch’s principled textualism might favor progressive rather than conservative results. And more broadly, Gorsuch seems committed not so much to dismantling the administrative state as to ensuring that the administrative state maintains lines of accountability that protect constitutional values, such as liberty, due process, and fair notice. The Jeffersonian Justice Louis Brandeis, who voted to strike down the most centralizing aspects of the New Deal, would expect no less.

There’s no question that Gorsuch believes that the core of the judicial function is for a judge to separate his political from his constitutional views. As he eloquently wrote in his tribute to Scalia:

Now as I judge I see too that donning a black robe means something—and not just that I can hide the coffee stains on my shirts. We wear robes—honest, unadorned, black polyester robes that we (yes) are expected to buy for ourselves at the local uniform supply store—as a reminder of what’s expected of us when we go about our business: what Burke called the “cold neutrality of an impartial judge.” Throughout  my decade on the bench, I have watched my colleagues strive day in and day out to do just as Socrates said we should—to hear courteously, answer wisely, consider soberly, and decide impartially. Men and women who do not thrust themselves into the limelight but who tend patiently and usually quite obscurely to the great promise of our legal system—the promise that all litigants, rich or poor, mighty or meek, will receive equal protection under the law and due process for their grievances. Judges who assiduously seek to avoid the temptation to secure results they prefer. And who do, in fact, regularly issue judgments with which they disagree as a matter of policy—all because they think that’s what the law fairly demands.

In a number of cases, moreover, Gorsuch has reached legal conclusions that diverge from his political views. In the Games-Perez case, he insisted that to be convicted of a felony in possession of a firearm, an individual had to know that he was a felon, not merely know that he possessed a gun. “The courts must carefully enforce criminal intent requirements when the government seeks to put a defendant behind bars,” Gorsuch insisted. And like Justice Scalia, Gorsuch has voted vigorously to enforce Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. In United States v. Carloss in 2016, for example, the Tenth Circuit held that police could ignore “No Trespassing” signs posted around a house and search its curtilage without a warrant. Gorsuch dissented, invoking the original understanding of the Fourth Amendment and the general warrants that sparked the American Revolution. “In the government’s telling, its agents enjoy a special and irrevocable right to invade a home’s curtilage for a knock and talk—what might be more accurately called a sort of permanent easement—whatever the homeowner may say or do about it,” Gorsuch wrote. “This line of reasoning seems to me difficult to reconcile with the Constitution of the founders’ design.”

Gorsuch has voted to enforce the Fourth Amendment in favor of the most unsympathetic defendants. He concurred in United States v. Krueger in 2015, concluding that officers violated the Fourth Amendment while searching a suspect’s home in Kansas for evidence of distribution of child pornography. A magistrate in Oklahoma, Gorsuch held, invoking the original understanding of the Fourth Amendment, didn’t have authority to issue a warrant for the search of a home in Kansas. And siding with the defendant in another child pornography case, United States v. Ackerman in 2016, Gorsuch held that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s search of a suspect’s private e-mails implicated the Fourth Amendment, because the center was acting like a government agent when it conducted the search. Gorsuch’s willingness to side, twice, with suspected child pornographers is vivid evidence of his willingness to enforce the Fourth Amendment wherever it leads.

Scalia’s seat is the same one held by Robert Jackson, one of the greatest writers on the 20th century Court. As Gorsuch said Tuesday in accepting his nomination, “The towering judges that have served in this particular seat of the Supreme Court, including Antonin Scalia and Robert Jackson, are much in my mind at this moment.” Like Jackson, Scalia’s influence came from a combination of his literary gifts and his powerful judicial vision. Gorsuch has the opportunity and the ambition to leave a similar mark on the Court and the law.

As I drove to the train station early this morning, hours after Gorsuch’s nomination, I passed one of the most beautiful sites in Washington, the Jefferson Memorial glimmering in the moonlight. Gorsuch’s constitutional vision is more Jeffersonian and less deferential to federal power than that of his Hamiltonian predecessors, Jackson and Scalia. If he succeeds Scalia and Jackson on the Court, he will likely be even more willing to enforce constitutional limitations on any excesses committed by the president who appointed him.