This article is typical of progs, they have an agenda, and say those who don’t have their agenda have an agenda.
Gorsuch is “biased” in the direction of corporations over employees. That’s totally incorrect. Progressives aren’t saying he’s biased – we’re saying he has a judicial ideology that consistently, statistically leads him to one set of results over another.
Yes, the judicial ideology that the Law and the Constitution mean what they say. Oh, the horror.
What [Senator Leahy (D-VT)] should have asked is this: If you just apply the law as you see it, why do right-wing ideologues all support you so strongly?
Because “right-wing” ideologues want the Law and the Constitution to be applied as written. This prog goes on to provide the perfect example.
For example, when the conversation turned to the Religious Liberty Restoration Act (RFRA), Judge Gorsuch noted how fair-minded he’s been, applying the law to a Muslim prisoner denied a halal meal. There was no discussion of the actual issues: whether RFRA applies to corporations, whether it allows businesses to discriminate against women and LGBT people on the basis of a religious belief, whether it covers harming third parties at all.
And there is it, this progs (indeed, most progs) do not want the law to be applied as it is written. Here is the law in question. It does not redefine the word person, so the definition in 1 U.S. Code § 1 is in force:
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals
And it was then-Representative Charles E. Shumer (D-NY-9) who sponsored H.R.1308 – Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
Oh, the irony.