Did you actually read his opinion or are you just disappointed that the outcome does not suit your personal bias. I read his opinion, which follows the argument Scalia made writing for the majority in a 2008 case, namely that the law is too vague to be enforceable.
The conservatives thought it didn't matter that the law was vague - in other words joining the side of the law means what I want it to mean when I agree with the outcome and not when I don't.
There is a really simple fix to vague laws - Congress should do a better job of drafting them - most law is very well drafted when the legislature takes the time to do it properly. They can fix this law and then everyone will agree that it should be enforced as written.
And your choice of verb tense indicates you believe that Gorsuch voting with "RATs" is an ongoing and continuous pattern. Is there any evidence for this assertion (site case, date, and vote breakdown)?
Yes, I read the arguement.
The Scalia decision was an 8-1 ruling on an entirely different type of law. Four the current conservatives on the court were also present on the court during the Scalia ruling. All four conservatives currently on the court voted with Scalia on the previous ruling.
When deciding the CURRENT case, NONE of them agreed that the previous ruling had ANY precedent on this one or involved the same sort of "vague law" that would justify voting to strike down this one. In short, it was comparing apples to oranges. It would be like trying to justify citing the 9-0 desegregation ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education to rule that snakes and chickens should be placed in the same cage together and not "segregated" into different cages.
Scalia would have never been the LONE GOP judge to vote with the marxist wing of the court, and you know it.
I read it.
I don’t know if I’d have ruled the same way but his reasoning was solid and I can’t fault him for it. The law should have been better written.