[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.

Nailed it...everything ive read he is unbiased to the letter of the law type. I think the most important thing he said was...a good judge should never be happy with all his rulings.