The hard left’s hopes of stopping Neil Gorsuch are looking ever more sickly. If the best they can do is Wednesday’s pathetic New York Times hit, Gorsuch will make it to the Supreme Court quite smoothly.

Under the ominous headline “Court Nominee Has Web of Ties To Secretive Colorado Billionaire,” the Times story wrings its hands over Gorsuch’s connections to Philip Anschutz — who’s so “secretive” that he owns two major media properties as well as a piece of the LA Lakers and the Staples Center, and has financed several major movies, including the “Chronicles of Narnia” series.

Yes, notes David French at National Review, Anschutz is publicity-shy — but there’s nothing ominous about that.

As for those “ties”: Gorsuch, while at the DC law firm Kellogg Huber, worked on several cases representing Anschutz, who’s based in his home state. And he befriended a few Anschutz Co. executives, even buying a 40-acre vacation property with them.

Gorsuch has also given a few speeches at an Anschutz-sponsored retreat. Finally, a top company lawyer recommended him for a judgeship in 2006.

French is right: The Times piece is basically “a human-interest story disguised as an exposé.”

But that may be the best the left can do. As Harvard law professor Noah Feldman notes, Democrats’ case against Gorsuch — that he’s “pro-corporate” and so opposed to “average Americans” — is a “truly terrible” argument that’s not remotely backed up by his judicial decisions.

Which is no doubt why a host of legal-world liberals have vouched for Gorsuch — and why only the most liberal Senate Democrats (who’d oppose any right-of-center nominee) are signaling opposition.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says he’ll wait until next week’s confirmation hearings before deciding whether to filibuster the nomination, as the left demands. But the truth is that, at this point, the nay-sayers have no case.