Which of these judicial philosophies describes Gorsuch?

[Dereich]

These descriptions are terrible and few if any fit. Scalia was not an originalist, dominionism doesn't fit as a judicial philosophy, establishment conservatism has no meaning in a judicial context, and proto-originalist is useless as well.

Gorsuch's past work indicates he'll be a legislative supremacist and probably a textialist. Therefore, Scalia is the closest answer.

[Dereich]

These descriptions are terrible and few if any fit. Scalia was not an originalist, dominionism doesn't fit as a judicial philosophy, establishment conservatism has no meaning in a judicial context, and proto-originalist is useless as well.

Gorsuch's past work indicates he'll be a legislative supremacist and probably a textialist. Therefore, Scalia is the closest answer.

I don't know how to label Roberts. Dominionism isn't a judicial philosophy but Santorum and Moore use it as one. I don't know how to label Alito. Alito seems to be like a Scalia who is not quite as textualist.

Scalia is ABSOLUTELY a textualist; he is THE BEST example of a textualist. Here's an (unfriendly) article highlighting that. Thomas is the true originalist and there are few (if any) like him in the federal judiciary.

[Dereich]

These descriptions are terrible and few if any fit. Scalia was not an originalist, dominionism doesn't fit as a judicial philosophy, establishment conservatism has no meaning in a judicial context, and proto-originalist is useless as well.

Gorsuch's past work indicates he'll be a legislative supremacist and probably a textialist. Therefore, Scalia is the closest answer.

I don't know how to label Roberts. Dominionism isn't a judicial philosophy but Santorum and Moore use it as one. I don't know how to label Alito. Alito seems to be like a Scalia who is not quite as textualist.

Scalia is ABSOLUTELY a textualist; he is THE BEST example of a textualist. Here's an (unfriendly) article highlighting that. Thomas is the true originalist and there are few (if any) like him in the federal judiciary.

Citizens United is not a textualist decision.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Scalia's concurrence has his trademark close scrutiny of text. Actually, in general Citizens United is a bad example of Scalia's constitutional analysis as it was primarily written to counter Justice Steven's originalist dissent and so in general reads more like an originalist attack rather than a textual one. Scalia's dissents are almost always better than his concurrences.