So, Neil Gorsuch...

I believe we shall be fine with this one.

After doing very little research, aka virtually none. I'm thinking he's pretty good, and I think he will understand the phrases that you mentioned.

#hereshoping

No one in this day and age is going to stand in front of a microphone and say, "The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to put the citizenry on equal footing with their government." Hopefully, he understands that to be the reason for "shall not be infringed."

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats have forced a one-week delay for the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee.Judge Neil Gorsuch is still on track for confirmation, with solid backing from the Republican majority.Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Monday announced the delay that was requested by Democrats.Any member of the committee can move to delay panel business and it is frequent practice. The committee will now vote on Gorsuch's nomination April 3.At least 15 Democrats and independents, led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have announced their opposition to the Denver-based appeals court judge. They argue that Gorsuch has ruled too often against workers and in favor of corporations.

From what I've read, he'll be confirmed anyway.

Perhaps the Court will eventually see the Second Amendment in the same light? Nah! But at least one good ruling for freedom lovers has just been handed down!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rejecting-trademarks-that-disparage-others-violates-the-first-amendment/2017/06/19/26a33ffa-23b3-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html?utm_term=.1d7afa7bae86

Saw that article too. Good. That means the Patent and Trademark Office can't act as a tool of censorship.

Look what my congress critter tweeted right before the supreme court upheld the travel restrictions 9-0 How embarrasing for him. The nine most prestigious lawyers in the country have a different view of what the constitution says.

I hope the #SupremeCourt sees @realdonaldtrump's travel ban for what it is -- a divisive unconstitutional, un-American act. #NoBanNoWall,

Not that I especially cared one way or the other. I usually err on the side of less government intervetion on everything. I'll worry about fudgebars when they start directly messing with me.

I knew there was something I liked about you! It seems to me that someone- and not always just the Government-somewhere, always wants us to worry about something!

From deforestation, to Global Climate Change-whatever happened to Global Warming?-, to what type of flu virus is going around, and on and on and on...

If we worried about all the things we were bombarded with that we were told to worry about, we'd just stay in bed and die!

Meanwhile in Manhattan, Cyrus Vance, Jr., a( not sure if he's THE) District Attorney, wants us to worry that National Reciprocity will play into the hands of the fudgebars??? I guess he envisions thousands of scary black rifles being purchased on the interwebs with out a background check, and trucked into the city in convoys to be used to slaughter the innocent. Jebus!

Glad I live in a somewhat more sane city.

I finally checked and The Supreme Court won't be hearing Peruta v California any time soon. Gorsuch and Thomas were the only two who wanted to grant certiorari at this time.

Trump picked the right guy.

Are the Justices delaying until there is a death or retirement? From the SCOTUSBlog today: " No new grants, court denies review in gun-rights cases

The Supreme Court issued orders from its November 21 conference today. The justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket for the term, but they did deny review in several high-profile cases.

Perhaps the most noteworthy denials came in two cases involving gun rights: Kolbe v. Hogan, a challenge to Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, passed in the wake of the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school; and Norman v. Florida, a challenge to the state’s ban on the open carrying of guns in public. In both cases, the lower courts had upheld the states’ bans, so today’s rulings leave those decisions in place. Unlike last June, when Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the court’s denial of review in Peruta v. California, in which the justices had been asked to decide whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense, today’s denials were not accompanied by any public comments from the justices."

I found that odd. Just a straight up "no" without any explanation.

The blog didn't give any clues as to how each one voted. My guess is that Thomas felt that he has said what needed to be said and didn't want to band his head against a brick wall.