Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimrandomh | Hacker News Reader

Gorsuch's dissent is the first opinion of his that I've read, and I'm extremely unimpressed. It reads more like a newspaper editorial than an opinion of the Supreme Court; it's overtly political; and it doesn't mention the facts of the case at all, even as background. This does not bode well.

View on HN

Reads like a newspaper editorial? Maybe the first paragraph but he quickly goes into the relevant case law and Constitutional support.

I've read enough Supreme Court opinions to see that his is a very different style but I'm not sure that that's a bad thing. It is remarkably clear, gets to the core constitutional issue, and sticks to principles. (In a footnote, he even chides the concurring opinion for its utilitarianism.)

I'm quite impressed.

I thought it was pretty typical for a dissent or concurring opinion to omit background facts since it's expected that they will be covered in the opinion of the court. IANAL though.

>it doesn't mention the facts of the case at all, even as background

Well, the case was a facial challenge to the inter partes review system, not an as-applied challenge, so the particular facts of the case wouldn't be relevant to the decision, no?

Which portion of his dissent did you find to be "overtly political?"

Given that he thought the property rights concerns should govern and the...forcefulness...of his questions at oral arguments, I thought it was a pretty measured opinion. I wouldn't have expected lines like: > "Today’s decision may not represent a rout but it at least signals a retreat from Article III’s guarantees."

I'm impressed that you have only read one opinion andakready know enough of the structure and content generally that you can critique it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com