I've always maintained that if a justice were an originalist, it wouldn't matter if their personal politics were liberal or conservative. An originalist would always ask why "X" is before the court in the first place. They would ask why the government is even involved in "X". They would usually issue the opinion that "X" is no business of the government and therefore the government shouldn't be providing or controlling it. In short, an originalist would be quite libertarian. If it were an attempt to limit a natural right they would point out the fact that the government did not grant these rights and therefore cannot limit them. This is really all I ask.
To that end, Gorsch boldly attacked judicial deference to the administrative branch and to Congress as well as attacked Congress for granting the president such powers. That's a big plus and a big win for originalism, and he really has no major opinions away from that core principal. His biggest problem might be that he doesn't have that many opinions, being so young and relatively inexperienced as an appeals court judge. I think he is on every Constitutionalist's short list. But I think that those who are concerned with appointing a "conservative" justice willing to back socially conservative principal might just be in for a surprise with him. Now that isn't really a problem for me, but it might be for some. In fact, I didn't find Kagen a particularly egregious pick, and she did wind up siding with the conservatives on every point of law, if not on every decision. This shows an independent streak that is absolutely necessary in a good justice.
Gorsch might just be my second favorite, behind Sykes. Sykes could also serve to shut down some of the misogynist talk surrounding Trump. Either way I think originalism would win even though nobody could ever replace the scholarly Scalia.
