This is a strange title and as applies to me, and not accurate substantively, either. My criticism of Gorsuch is substantive. His written opinion is extremely deceitful — a fact. To say the text of Title VII incorporates sexual orientation when there is no basis whatever for such a conclusion is deceitful — no text, no history, nothing. It is a blatant violation of separation of powers. Moreover, Gorsuch, as we Court-watchers know, has used a similarly deceitful approach in his approach to criminal law. The law is supposed to be predictable and just. It’s neither when justices are legislators in robes with lifetime appointments. My first book, Men In Black, explains this in detail. Thus, Howard Kurtz’s final assertion in his piece is way off the mark, when he writes: “As for Neil Gorsuch, he may have lost the affection of some of his conservative supporters, at least for now, but he did show that the pledge he made before taking the job wasn’t empty words.” Actually, the opposite is true. Ignorance about the Constitution and its construction is ubiquitous in the media.