Talk:Neil Gorsuch

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges.  Endwise (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges §&nbsp;RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges]]

message: I tagged this lead text "dubious". The references are from before his time on the Supreme Court and among other things entail overly broad self-description. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty confident Gorsuch is still an originalist and a textualist. Do you have any reason to believe he no longer is? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you familiar with his writings and the reactions he's elicited since he's been on the court?   [ https://nysba.org/impertinent-questions-the-unusual-case-of-gorsuch-v-alito-and-the-supreme-courts-textualist-approach-to-judging/]  etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea I read the articles. It just seems as though his fashion of "textualism" has been somewhat controversial, but ultimately textualism doesn't have a strict definition. Those sources reiterate his profession to the use of textualism. The one by the Constitutional Accountability Center is a biased progressive source so I don't think its usable. Maybe some type of clause or sentence could be added that his fashion of textualism is controversial. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it is a poorly-defined term, it certainly does not belong in the lead, where it will mislead countless readers who stop at the lead and never consult the sources or even the article text. "Biased progressive source" ??? Really? SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it's poorly defined does not mean it doesn't belong in the lead. He considers himself that and he's been described as such. Do you think he's not a textualist? What exactly do you want out of this discussion? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism 

message: All of the other justice's photos on their pages match those found on the current justices section of the SCOTUS website. Should we do that here too to match the other justices, or is there a copyright issue with the photo on the website or something? Pacamah (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating photo 

message: I noted the page has very little detail on his writings on the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause as a SCOTUS Justice despite that being an important part of his jurisprudence. I think a section should be added. Some more detail on this.  Gorsuch joined a 2 page concurrence from Thomas criticising Locke in his concurrence and called the majority's endorsement of Locke concerning, although joined the majority because it construed Locke narrowly. Gorsuch also wrote his own concurrence also joined by Justice Thomas, in Trinity Lutheran rejecting the reasoning of footnote 3. Gorsuch criticised the distinction between religious status and religious use. He argued the distinction isn't clear and the same set of facts can be described as both status and use. Gorsuch reiterated these criticism more fully in a concurring opinion in Espinoza. He said it is a violation of free exercise either way.  
In the COVID-19 emergency litigation, Gorsuch was an active writer for the Court. He wrote a number of concurring opinions. Importantly, he wrote a concurrence in Roman Catholic Brooklyn Diocese criticising Roberts concurrence in South Bay I for what he termed as being too deferential to government and inviting lower Courts to ignore religious liberty. He also compared various establishments including bike shops, liquor shops, acupuncturists etc. to churches for the purposes of neutrality analysis. He reiterated these points in South Bay II. 
On these points and several others, I think this page could be improved. 
Nosteponsnek76 (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st Amendment rulings on the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause as a SCOTUS Justice 

message: In the 2005 entry for "other publications", change "Matey, Matey" to "Matey, Paul" -- 2600:4040:2957:D900:BDF1:B686:BC52:42E0 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-author's name incorrectly rendered 

message: Given the background of the case was directly about whether or not the company on questions could refuse service to a gay couple it seems like it should get some mention underneath that header if it's not going to be mentioned in the 1st ammendment header. I think it'd belong more in the LGBT rights header anyways given it's direct relation to that subject. 2600:1702:55B0:FC00:F87F:D23D:83EE:8CCA (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the 303 Creative LLC be mentioned under the 'LGBT Rights' header?