That is an interesting proposition, coming from this judge, and from this court.
First, I wonder whether it was an all expenses paid plus a fee-for-lecture speech, as it usually happens with "justices" of this useless court that is doing nothing to enforce the law, but has long usurped the power to act as the ultimate lawmaker and policymaker based on judges' own personal values.
The fight over who is going to replace Scalia (Gorsuch did) was only a litmus test of what the U.S. Supreme Court has become - once again, a useless drain on taxpayers that takes only those cases it wants to take, and then makes policy and the law in those cases that it does take - likely in exchange for speaking engagements, all expenses paid national and international trips and the like favors, otherwise the identity of who is going to be the next judge on this court and who will impartially apply the law to the facts should not really matter.
Second, Judge Gorsuch did not elaborate what he considers as "cynicism about the government". Very possibly it is criticism of the government - protected by the 1st Amendment.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court rules on cases based on personal values and views of its judges - and rejects 99% of cases for review - it is apparent that Gorsuch is no different than the other judges who, for example, refused to take a case of an attorney disciplined for criticism of a judge (one of their own class) for half a century.
Gorsuch's claim that he does not share "cynicism about the government" made in the same speech where he lauded (while his court is about to review immigration cases against the Trump administration) that the government may be stopped by courts without the use of arms - constitutes, in my view, a type of judicial misconduct.
It is a potential pre-judgment of cases against Trump, indicating that Judge Gorsuch thinks that no matter the lower federal courts do, whether their decisions are lawful or not, whether they are constitutional or not, somehow they need to be obeyed - even though unconstitutional court decisions are void, and a nullity, and even though precedents of federal courts are not part of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution that Judge Gorsuch keeps taking various oaths (as an attorney, and then as a judge of various levels) to uphold.
Judge Gorsuch's own court has decided - in a case 214 years ago by which the U.S. Supreme Court has usurped the right to interpret the U.S. Constitution - that
"[c]ertainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void."
In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an act of the government (no matter which branch) "repugnant to the constitution is void".
Void means a nullity, having no force of law.
Certainly the same applies to unconstitutional decisions of courts.
Yet, as to court decisions, courts - including the U.S. Supreme Court - have a different position: no matter whether a court decision is or is not lawful, it must be obeyed, which is an opinion that lacks common sense and is unconstitutional.
So, we see that Judge Gorsuch, from a get-go, started spouting opinions that he does not "share" "cynicism about the government" - which is, from a judge of his rank, and coupled with his praise of the government obeying court decisions, no matter whether they are constitutional or not, can be regarded as a thinly veiled threat to critics of courts.
Moreover, Judge Gorsuch spouted in the same lecture one more "truth", which, considering the ongoing debate about the ever widening "justice gap", and a continuing debate of wrongful executions of innocent people - TWO of them already on Judge Gorsuch's conscience:
- of Ledell Lee in Arkansas where Gorsuch played God and cast the decisive vote in execution of what could be an innocent man - a black man; and
- of Robert Melson - another black man, in the state of Alabama - who was tied to a triple murder only by a co-defendant's testimony (in order to get himself out of his own death penalty) and a shoe print that was found (or appeared) at the crime scene "coincidentally" after the police forcibly took shoes from Robert Melson (and likely fabricated evidence to put him on the death row).
- the death penalty is imposed EXCLUSIVELY on indigent criminal defendants who cannot afford their own attorney;
- where the majority of people cannot afford a private attorney even at the trial level, much less at the appellate level;
- where appeals have become prohibitively expensive - because of complexity of the law CREATED by the judiciary in order to keep in business the legal elite that pays for wining-and-dining and all-expenses-paid trips for judges -