Neil Gorsuch's stance on criminal justice appears to be Somewhat Right, but with some nuanced positions. While he generally leans towards law enforcement interests, he has shown skepticism towards excessive government power in criminal cases. For example, he dissented in a drug trafficking case, arguing that the majority's decision gave prosecutors too much power to sway juries with expert testimony. Gorsuch has also expressed concerns about overcriminalization and the human toll of excessive laws and regulations. However, his overall judicial philosophy emphasizes strict interpretation of laws, which can sometimes lead to outcomes less favorable to defendants.
Source: CNN Neil Gorsuch's stance on the economy appears to be predominantly conservative with some moderate elements. He has consistently supported pro-business policies, including voting for tax breaks for corporations and reducing regulations on smaller banks. However, Gorsuch has also shown support for some government intervention, such as voting for stimulus packages during economic downturns and supporting expanded lending caps for credit unions to small businesses. While generally favoring free-market solutions, Gorsuch has demonstrated a willingness to back targeted government action to stimulate economic growth when deemed necessary
Source: The Washington Post Gorsuch has not made many direct rulings or statements on domestic education legislation and policy, but his track record of favoring a limited role for federal agencies and his general skepticism towards extensive regulations likely means that he has a conservative stance on education as well. His judicial philosophy emphasizes strict interpretation of laws and the Constitution, which may translate to a higher likelyhood of supporting limited changes to the education system.
Source: Ballotpedia Neil Gorsuch's stance on energy policy appears to lean conservative. He has shown skepticism towards environmental regulations and federal agency authority, which could impact energy policy implementation. Gorsuch has ties to the fossil fuel industry, particularly through his connection to oil tycoon Philip Anschutz. His judicial philosophy emphasizes limiting government intervention and favoring business interests, which may translate to supporting fossil fuel development and opposing stringent environmental regulations in the energy sector. However, Gorsuch's direct rulings on energy issues are limited, making it challenging to definitively characterize his stance on all aspects of energy policy.
Source: Constitutional Accountability Center Based on the available information, Neil Gorsuch appears to lean conservative on issues related to government dependency and regulation. He has expressed concerns about an “explosion of government rules“ and their impact on individual liberties. In his book “Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law,“ Gorsuch criticizes what he sees as excessive regulations and their negative effects on businesses and individuals. However, he does acknowledge that many laws and regulations are well-intentioned. Gorsuch's judicial philosophy emphasizes limited government intervention and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which aligns with conservative views on reducing government dependency.
Source: Congressional Research Service Gorsuch has consistently opposed the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate, and he has sided with corporations that objected to providing certain contraceptives on religious grounds. Gorsuch has also written against assisted suicide and euthanasia, arguing that all human life is fundamentally valuable. Similarly, supported the Supreme Court majority in the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe vs. Wade.
Source: Politico Neil Gorsuch's stance on immigration appears to be surprisingly moderate for a Trump nominee. While he generally leans conservative, his record on immigration cases shows a more nuanced approach. Gorsuch has sometimes ruled in favor of immigrants, particularly in cases involving administrative procedures and statutory interpretation. He has shown skepticism towards retroactive application of immigration policies and has criticized certain precedents that grant excessive deference to government agencies in immigration matters. However, Gorsuch's overall judicial philosophy emphasizes strict interpretation of the law, which can sometimes lead to outcomes less favorable to immigrants. His record suggests a careful, case-by-case approach rather than a consistently hardline stance on immigration issues.
Source: FiveThirtyEight Neil Gorsuch's stance on national security appears to be strongly conservative. His opinions suggest a deferential approach to law enforcement and government agencies in national security matters. Gorsuch has shown a willingness to uphold warrantless searches and detentions in exigent circumstances, and has expressed skepticism towards judicial oversight of the administrative state, which could impact national security policies. Overall, Gorsuch's judicial philosophy and rulings indicate a conservative leaning on issues of national security.
Source: Lawfare Based on the available information, Neil Gorsuch's stance on reducing the national debt appears to lean conservative. While he has not directly commented on debt reduction policies, his overall judicial philosophy emphasizes limiting government power and deferring to the legislative branch on policy decisions. Gorsuch has expressed skepticism towards expansive interpretations of federal agency authority, which could translate to a more cautious approach to deficit spending.
Source: CNN Neil Gorsuch's stance on drug policy appears to be somewhat nuanced, leaning conservative overall but with some more moderate positions. In a recent Supreme Court case involving drug trafficking, Gorsuch dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that the decision gave prosecutors too much power. He expressed concern about the government's ability to use expert testimony to sway juries in drug cases without sufficient evidence. However, Gorsuch's dissent seems rooted more in his skepticism of government overreach and concern for due process rather than a liberal stance on drug policy itself. His overall judicial philosophy emphasizes limiting federal power, which could impact drug enforcement approaches.
Source: The Hill
| 
