Neil Gorsuch is the conservative antichrist raised from the depths of hell to add insult to the injury of the loss of Judge Garland! As some would like you to believe. However, Judge Gorsuch is not an extension of political partisanship, but instead a fair interpreter of the law as it is written. Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing reveals his impartiality in the face of political hackery, and dedication to delivering justice–not forwarding an agenda.

If you watch the hearing for yourself and not through the filter of others’ interpretations, you would see several attempts by members of Congress to corner Gorsuch politically by their questioning. Ranging from current legal precedents on gun control and abortion, Gorsuch has responded time and time again that he will rule by the law. However, the prospect was not promising enough, for Democrats decided to filibuster Gorsuch, and consequently, forced Republicans to use the nuclear option. Many of those participants were enraged by Republican action–saying it was unprecedented–although they created the option. It is easy to have principle when it is convenient to you, especially when you have the moral backbone of a chocolate eclair.

The questioning reveals congress’s attempts to pack the court, so as to legislate from the bench. If you judge according to my ideology, I will vote for you. The conflict of interest is obvious here. Litigation is not judging and interpreting the law by the broadest scope to suit your purposes, neither is justice. The judiciary by nature has no room for the politics of the executive and legislative branch.

There were several efforts to speak against Gorsuch’s appointment: The first of which was regarding his participation in the Bush administration’s policies on torture during his service as a Justice Department official.

Gorsuch advocated a signing statement that stated the Detainee Treatment Act did not apply to sleep deprivation and waterboarding. When asked whether he personally thought these techniques were law, he refused to answer. Gorsuch has defended himself by saying that he was a lawyer, not a policymaker, and only doing his job. Other related claims state that Gorsuch had drafted a statement for the Attorney General that justified wiretapping without warrant, which violated a 1978 law prohibiting it. In response, Gorsuch has gone on record to say that he was only acting on the part of a speech writer, and asked, said that he did not agree with the statement.

Minnesota senator, Al Franken, brought up a previous case of Gorsuch’s where a truck driver, was fired for abandoning his rig in extreme low temperatures. Al Franken claimed the absurdity doctrine because the law clearly protects workers operating in unsafe conditions, but Gorsuch retorted the absurdity doctrine only applies when there is a scrutiner’s error.  Furthermore, it was not a matter of personal safety because the trucker had unhitched the cargo and chose to operate the vehicle. Even then, Gorsuch admitted that it was “one of those cases you take home at night,” which contradicts Franken’s more clear-cut portrayal.

Senators made various suggestions regarding gender bias, none of which has any substance to them, such as inappropriate questioning of his female law student’s family planning and male pronouns concerning the president in the constitution. Gorsuch responded to both by saying that he had asked his female students the question to demonstrate the point that it was an inappropriate workplace topic and that his originalism does mean he wants to take us “back to horse and buggy.”

In conclusion, meager attempts to corner the judge with ambiguous cases from his past, loaded questions to place the judge into a partisan label, and the clear refusal to approve his judgement lest he rule on the side of an ideology, reveals our truly divided political atmosphere. Everything is politicized, and now our judicial system too.