Be nice to Ian Millhiser, everybody. ThinkProgress’ resident judicial expert is having a really rough time coming to terms with the fact that conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is intellectually consistent.

In which I try to make sense of when Gorsuch crosses over to vote with the liberal justices, and why he does it. The short version — there's a very clear pattern, and it is very troubling.https://t.co/LsgAowEblG — Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) June 24, 2019

What’s so “very troubling” to Millhiser is that Gorsuch doesn’t trust government bureaucrats and thinks Congress have given them far too much power. And his decisions reflect that, even if that means occasionally siding with his liberal SCOTUS colleagues. The horror!

Maybe he’s just not a partisan hack/judge. I mean that’s the ways it’s *supposed* to be — Bryan Putman (@Bryan_275) June 24, 2019

This analysis misunderstands what Gorsuch is doing. His jurisprudence so far has tried to put the responsibility for federal law back where it belongs – on Congress. The Court shouldn't let cowards in Congress punt controversial details of federal law to someone else. — Allan Thoen (@AllanThoen) June 24, 2019

So it take you like the status quo where congress can delegate all of its authority to an unelected bureaucrat and then, when voters complain, throw up these hands and say, “oh! That is terrible what such and such agency did! I’m so sorry!” And do absolutely nothing about it? — HappyTashlan (@BoredTashlan) June 24, 2019

Taking power away from unaccountable department bureaucrats and giving it back to our elected legislature sounds pretty awesome actually. — KSLawWolf (@KSLawWolf) June 24, 2019

GP I'll go with "because Gorsuch has a consistent judicial philosophy and doesn't attempt to shoehorn decisions into prevailing leftist dogma which results in contradictory and downright schizophrenic votes like the liberal justices do." https://t.co/vy7tSSDEMT — The Gormogons (@Gormogons) June 24, 2019

Poor Millhouse.

You would have wrote literally the same think if he had sided with the “conservative” justices in an opposite ruling. — Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) June 24, 2019

I genuinely do not understand the point that you are making. — Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) June 24, 2019

That may very well be the only honest thing Ian has ever tweeted.

You okay bro? — Dan Goldwasser (@dgoldwas) June 24, 2019

Maybe because he’s not an activist judge? You are so desperate for a specific narrative that doesn’t actually exist. — J eberhardt (@jeberhardt37) June 24, 2019

Watching Millhiser try to reconcile his ridiculous, conspiratorial worldview with the reality of who Neil Gorsuch actually is—a reality that was clear years ago—never gets old. https://t.co/4b6IG2YA8C — Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) June 24, 2019

Ian was also openly surprised when Gorsuch ruled in favor of tribal sovereignty, despite basically everyone predicting he'd do so during the nomination process — Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) June 24, 2019

Have you ever thought, just for a quick minute, that he votes the way he does because he is applying the law as he interprets it and not because of some grand conspiracy you have cooked up in your sad head? Maybe you were just wrong about him? — Ken Adams (@Elohssa412) June 24, 2019

I'm sorry, do you think you're good at this analysis stuff? — Jaihawkk (@Jaihawkk) June 24, 2019

I wonder what sort of intellectual life-path causes a grown adult to put together conspiracy theories rather than admit that he's wrong about something so inconsequential. https://t.co/Kx08R9YoL4 — PoliMath (@politicalmath) June 24, 2019

I'm sure there are some things that I think or do, patterns of intellectual behavior, where there is a wiser person with a different background who gawks at my ignorance and stupidity.

I wonder who that person is. — PoliMath (@politicalmath) June 24, 2019

He basically triggered himself. — Kal (@kkrz1211) June 24, 2019

Ha! He totally did.