[BillyBoy]

As many FReepers know, I was one of those FEW naysayers on Gorsuch, arguing that he would vote similarly to Sandra Day O'Connor, while his legions of fans on this board were convinced he was Scalia 2.0., on the basis that a judge claiming to be an "originalist" means they will magically ALWAYS vote the right way in the future, regardless of their own personal views (cuz you know, that always worked SO well in the past with judges like Roberts, Souter, etc., etc. < sarcasm> )

I stand by my belief that Gorsuch will be another Sandra Day O'Connor, and will generally vote the "right away" but will NOT vote to overturn any "landmark" liberal precedents like a "right" to an abortion and gay marriage, and that nominating Gorsuch did NOT "keep Trump's campaign promise to nominate a proven pro-life judge"

Now that he just pulled an Anthony Kennedy and sided with the court's 4 RAT judges to strike down conservative laws, are his fanboys still having orgasms over Gorsuch?

[wiseprince]

So you want judge’s to act like the liberals but just come down on the conservative view of things? The Liberals clearly look at the result they want and build come crazy logic to get it. I know why we’d want “our guys” to do the same but I also know why it’s not a good idea”

[Theodore R.]

I had qualms about Gorsuch too, maybe because he is a Coloradan, and many there are full-blown socialists.

[Impy]

What’s your take, Auh?

While this is politically “bad” this doesn’t seem to be an ideological slip up by Gorsuch.

He says in a concurring option that the law is vague as to what a “violent” crime is. He says

“no one should be surprised that the Constitution looks unkindly on any law so vague that reasonable people cannot understand its terms and judges do not know where to begin in applying it.”’

Is he right or full of it? Should he have voted “the right way” politically despite misgivings about the law?

In anycase I don’t imagine this is an Obamacare-level “betrayal”.