Neil Gorsuch is handsome and also very conservative

The GOP has been pitching this dude like he’s a moderate, Merrick Garland lovin’ dude. So now that the Schumer and the pips are saying they’re gonna filibuster, might as well know why, yeah?

This is what you should know about Neil Gorsuch – Prez. T’s appointee to the SCOTUS.

What Neil Gorsuch’s faith and writings could say about his approach to religion on the Supreme Court – Denver Post

In Hobby Lobby, Gorsuch argued that the requirement would force business owners “to underwrite payments for drugs or devices that can have the effect of destroying a fertilized human egg,” despite arguments from the law’s supporters that an exemption would allow owners to impose their faith on employees.

Then, in a case on assisted suicide …

He wrote that “human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.” The argument, he continued, is based on “secular moral theory” and consistent with “common law and long-standing medical ethics.”

One of the more legal-need tells from Gorsuch has been his opinion regarding the Chevron deference.

Neil Gorsuch and the “Frozen Trucker” – Slate

Instead of considering such possibilities, Gorsuch concluded that the statute did not protect Maddin from his firing and that he did not find the word operate ambiguous at all, declaring that no possible meaning beyond drive is reasonable. Since Maddin drove his truck, Gorsuch agreed with TransAm that he should not be protected by the whistleblower statute. In a long footnote to its opinion, the majority writes that Gorsuch has decided to change the text of the law from operate to drive, and they quote Gorsuch back to him from oral argument: “Our job isn’t to legislate and add new words that aren’t present in the statute.”

Basically, he used the authority of the court to redefine the language of certain claims in the case. It’s an important caveat.

Does the Likely Next Supreme Court Justice Support Pregnancy Discrimination?

“[H]e asked the class to raise their hands if they knew of a female who had used a company to get maternity benefits and then left right after having a baby. … He then announced that all our hands should be raised because ‘many’ women use their companies for maternity benefits and then leave the company after the baby is born. … Judge Gorsuch told the class that not only could a future employer ask female interviewees about their pregnancy and family plans, companies must ask females about their family and pregnancy plans to protect the company. … Judge Gorsuch continued to steer the conversation back to the problems women pose for companies and the protections that companies need from women.”

Hey it’s me, extremely free speech guy, telling you to judge this dude for classroom discussion topics.

He denies this, of course, so take it as you will. It is pretty disconcerting if it’s even remotely legitimate.

This dude is what he is. What he is may actually be one of the most conservative judges the bench has seen this century. And it’s a position for life and he’s got a lot of that left.

God save the Filibuster ✌️.