I'd love to say to Gorsuch that American conservatives circumvented the process of determining the winner of a certain presidential election that occurred a little over 16 years ago, based on a decision that was not the slightest bit consistent with the intended meaning of any clause in the Constitution nor the intended meaning of any precedent, and see how Gorsuch responds.
It's not as if I believe Gorsuch is wrong about how liberals have circumvented the democratic process on those issues (and others), but my point is that Bush v. Gore proved to me that Republicans do not appoint better Supreme Court Justices than do Democrats, and Republicans are utter hypocrites about disdaining judicial activism. I mean hypocrisy in that classic sense of an homage that vice pays to virtue; what Republicans have said is wrong about judicial activism is the right thing to say, but Republicans have not practiced what they preached.
I think an important issue/point is that one of the most important functions of the court is to protect the rights of a class of minorities against majorities.. gay marriage is a right of a minority. A comparison (in the past) may be inter-racial marriage... the democratic process was never going to be able to lead on this issue... it had to inherently fall to the courts.
Exactly why I'm against having judges be up for election: The right decision is often an unpopular one, and courts should be a check on mob rule.
