Reads like a newspaper editorial? Maybe the first paragraph but he quickly goes into the relevant case law and Constitutional support.

I've read enough Supreme Court opinions to see that his is a very different style but I'm not sure that that's a bad thing. It is remarkably clear, gets to the core constitutional issue, and sticks to principles. (In a footnote, he even chides the concurring opinion for its utilitarianism.)

I'm quite impressed.

I thought it was pretty typical for a dissent or concurring opinion to omit background facts since it's expected that they will be covered in the opinion of the court. IANAL though.

>it doesn't mention the facts of the case at all, even as background

Well, the case was a facial challenge to the inter partes review system, not an as-applied challenge, so the particular facts of the case wouldn't be relevant to the decision, no?

Which portion of his dissent did you find to be "overtly political?"

Given that he thought the property rights concerns should govern and the...forcefulness...of his questions at oral arguments, I thought it was a pretty measured opinion. I wouldn't have expected lines like: > "Today’s decision may not represent a rout but it at least signals a retreat from Article III’s guarantees."

Sotomayor didn't even write an opinion here, why would anyone comment on her writing? I have zero opinions on the judge, but your post is pure BS.

The parent was making an ideologically based argument but masking it as an actual critique of legal opinion writing, so I am pointing out that if the parent actually cares abou quality legal opinion, he should lament Sotomayor’s work. But he doesn’t because his critique isn’t valid— it’s due entirely to a knee-jerk reaction to Trump.

You don't have to repeat yourself, clarity was not the problem with your previous post.

It may be that the parent poster is completely biased, but not commenting on the writing of a judge that did not write an opinion on this decision is not evidence of that. That you think it is reveals your ideological biases, though.

> let’s not be juvenile in our analysis

If you're writing like this because it's fun for you, then...ok. But if you're writing this because you want people to listen to you and think about what you're saying, you're gonna have a bad time.

Please don't take HN threads further into political flamewar.

Was that really necessary?

I think it's a valid point of discussion given the circumstances surrounding his nomination and subsequent appointment.

Justice Gorsuch's qualification was not primarily his politics. He was eminently qualified for the Court, so I disagree that it's a valid point of discussion. (That he came from a Federalist Society background and was generally regarded as a conservative was certainly a factor, but that's how presidents pick justices.)

I am not critiquing his ability to perform the job but the process of his selection.

I'm impressed that you have only read one opinion andakready know enough of the structure and content generally that you can critique it.