Another Supreme Court term is in the books and except for a precious few cases, there was little controversy.  The number of 5-4 or 4-4 decisions (since for most of the term there were only 8 Justices) is about the average for the Roberts Court.  In fact, by my count, there were only seven such decisions- 3 more than last term.  Hence, very little controversy.

But, that has not stopped the doomsdayers on the Left from predicting the end of the world when it comes to Neil Gorsuch.  Perhaps the best example of this rhetoric comes from Mark Joseph Stern at Slate who is apparently their LGBTQA+ to the infinity power exponent writer.  He states:

On Monday, Justice Neil Gorsuch revealed himself to be everything that liberals had most feared: pro-gun, pro–travel ban, anti-gay, anti–church/state separation. He is certainly more conservative than Justice Samuel Alito and possibly to the right of Justice Clarence Thomas. He is an uncompromising reactionary and an unmitigated disaster for the progressive constitutional project. And he will likely serve on the court for at least three more decades.

The only true statement in that paragraph one can say with hopeful absolute certainty is the last sentence.  So what drives Stern and others to reach this conclusion about Neil Gorsuch, who has all of ten weeks experience on the Supreme Court bench that he is the end of America and the hypothetical “progressive constitutional project,” whatever that is?

Stern is concerned because Gorsuch dissented from a ruling involving a case from Arkansas about same-sex parents having their names on a child’s birth certificate.  During his confirmation hearings, Gorsuch declared that Obergfell- all of two years- is “settled law.”  We hear the same thing about Roe vs. Wade decades later, but that does not stop litigation in that context.  Liberals are also upset that the Court will take up the infamous wedding cake controversy, considering that wedding cakes, flowers and photographs are the next fight in gay rights advocacy.

Gorsuch also has a “deep hostility” to separation of church and state (a phrase not found in the Constitution) because he (along with 6 other Justices) thinks having safe surfaces on playgrounds in Missouri is not a violation of the First Amendment.  And, of course, no discussion of Gorsuch would be complete with his opinion that the injunction on Trump’s travel suspension from certain Muslim countries should have been lifted completely, not piecemeal.

Speaking of this travel ban controversy, Scott Lemieux at Democracy says Gorsuch’s opinion in accepting the case and partially lifting the injunction indicates he will back Trump 100% come the fall.  He bases this on a decision last week holding federal officials immune from civil suits in the wake of alleged constitutional violations after 9/11.  Lemieux makes this claim even though Gorsuch, along with Kagan, did not participate in the case so we do not know how either of them would have voted.  Hence, we don’t know how Gorsuch will vote when the travel ban case is heard in the fall using the other case to predict a vote!

Ashley Dejean at Mother Jones has discovered the gift of divination saying that Gorsuch is going to rule for those discriminatory bakers of wedding cakes since he ruled as he did on the Arkansas birth certificate controversy.  Of course, one has nothing to do with the other.  Ms. Dejean should be apprised of the fact that Arkansas is a state while the bakers are individuals.  Also, the birth certificate case has not nothing to do with religious liberty; the other case does.

But that is the mindset of the Left.  Gay marriage is made legal nationwide by the Supreme Court’s poetic, yet lacking in constitutional substance Obergfell decision; therefore, fall in line and kneel before the altar of LGBTQA+ rights.

Reuters, in an article by Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung, had this to say:

Liberal groups and Democratic senators had vociferously opposed Gorsuch’s appointment, with the evidence so far suggesting their depiction of him as a dogged conservative was largely correct.

Justice Gorsuch has shown himself to be the conservative ideologue many predicted he would be and not the moderating check on the executive branch as others suggested he would be,” said Michele Jawando, a lawyer with the liberal Center for American Progress.

Obviously, this in-depth analysis is based on a comment from a lawyer for the Center for American Progress.  They do quote a conservative lawyer noting that they were fine with Gorsuch so far.  If one remembers, most conservatives were “fine” with David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts after ten weeks on the bench.

And no analysis would be complete without input from that absolutely perfect-in-all-things political, Fivethirtyeight who declared in finality:

Gorsuch, 10 weeks in, has been one of the most conservative members on the high court. That isn’t necessarily surprising — when Gorsuch was first nominated we called him a likely “Scalia clone” based on his lower court record — but it was far from guaranteed.

Stop the presses; the debate is over.  Fivethirtyeight has spoken- the same blog still pondering how they got the coronation of Hillary Clinton so wrong.

Stern, over at Slate, ends his article with: “This country is in terrible trouble.”

Indeed it is as long as we have “journalists” like Mark Joseph Stern who believe that halfwits like Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg- who can barely form a coherent verbal question these days- are constitutional scholars.

Conservatives have been burned before with Supreme Court picks.  For once, I hope the libtards are correct.