[RaccoonFace]

Some quotes from his recent dissents/opinions:

Quote:

PERRY v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD.

Anthony Perry asks us to tweak a congressional statute—just a little—so that it might (he says) work a bit more efficiently...Mr. Perry’s is an invitation I would run from fast. If a statute needs repair, there’s a constitutionally prescribed way to do it. It’s called legislation.

Quote:

TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF COLUMBIA, INC., PETITIONER v. CAROL S. COMER, DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

First, the Court leaves open the possibility a useful distinction might be drawn between laws that discriminate on the basis of religious status and religious use. See ante, at 12. Respectfully, I harbor doubts about the stability of such a line. Does a religious man say grace before dinner? Or does a man begin his meal in a religious manner? Is it a religious group that built the playground? Or
did a group build the playground so it might be used to advance a religious mission? The distinction blurs in much the same way the line between acts and omissions can blur when stared at too long, leaving us to ask (for example) whether the man who drowns by awaiting the incoming tide does so by act (coming upon the sea) or omission (allowing the sea to come upon him).

Quote:

MARISA N. PAVAN, ET AL. v. NATHANIEL SMITH

Given all this, it seems far from clear what here warrants the strong medicine of summary reversal. Indeed, it is not even clear what the Court expects to happen on remand that hasn’t happened already. The Court does not offer any remedial suggestion, and none leaps to mind. Perhaps the state supreme court could memorialize the State’s concession on §9–10–201, even though that law wasn’t fairly challenged and such a chore is hardly the usual reward for seeking faithfully to apply, not evade, this Court’s mandates.

Relevant commentary for this forum from another forum:

Quote:

What I like about those responses is that Gorsuch is applying abstract thought to the case. The jury is out on whether Sotomayor or Ginsburg (I.e. Women) have ever thought abstractly about a case or are they judging with some gumbo of ARE VALUES and Case law (what we want to happen, what has happened)

Gorsuch seems to ignore the 'what we want to happen' and 'what has happened' in favor of 'what could happen or will happen' which I would argue is the professional way to do it. Anybody can paralegal that s**t and use other people's justification as your own; it takes an abstract and enlightened thinker to apply morals and dareisay logic.

Quote:

good point that women often seem to avoid deciding anything on principle, and instead envision the outcome they want and justify it accordingly

sometimes you need a little of both