Neil Gorsuch is though and he signed on too. He even said that while he thought the government had to prove a higher standard than the opinion required, it didn’t matter to the decision because the government in his mind had met that even higher standard anyway.
So you quote the extreme interpretation of the decision by the dissenters to describe what he believes as opposed to using his own words? Seems unfair.
Yes, I believe that in a court case, when someone says "what about Scenario X" and then you write an opinion that fails to preclude Scenario X, you are writing an opinion that can be criticized for allowing Scenario X.
Gorsuch saying "I am not considering Scenario X" does not actually mean his opinion precludes it. His opinion, as written, allows it.
I have met true-to-life anarchists that would be perfectly happy living in a cabin in the woods. At least that's their theory, I had my doubts about their survival skill in such cabin in the woods communities after a month or so. I know it has happened but it's exceedingly rarely successful
Right, which is why "Justice XYZ agrees" does not (by itself) say anything at all about the moral or political valence of the decision.
Neil “the President can use SEAL Team 6 to eliminate his political opponents” Gorsuch?
He’s not a small government conservative, lol.