In Gorsuch's 2008 opinion regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Act, Gorsuch ruled that a school district complies with the law so long as they provide educational benefits that "must merely be more than de minimus" (i.e., so minor as to merit disregard).

 Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court:" when all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing "merely more than de minimus" progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.  For children with disabilities, receiving instruction that aims so low would be tantamount to "sitting idly....awaiting the time when the student is old enough to drop out."

In response to Senator Durbin about his now-discredited decision, Gorsuch said he was bound by the Circuit precedent, which is incorrect.  

As Gorsuch's Senate confirmation hearings began on Monday, some hardline conservatives have raised concerns about his choice of church.
"Be advised," blared a tweet from Bryan Fischer, a host on the American Family Radio Network. "Gorsuch attends a church that is rabidly pro-gay, pro-Muslim, pro-green, and anti-Trump."
"Is Gorsuch a secret liberal?" asked an op-ed in The Hill, a Washington newspaper.
Another columnist argued that if conservatives complained about Barack Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, shouldn't they also grumble about Gorsuch's?

 The problem is how Gorsuch got to this point in the first place.  There is, apparently, no institutional penalty for sabotaging constitutional norms.

It looks like Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed as the Trump Justice, barring some unexpected and damaging event. The hearings portray Judge Gorsuch as being smooth to the point of slickness. He is smart and well-coached.  No need to be concerned about previous Court decisions, he is very respectful of "precedents."  So much so that he respects the precedent of Bush v Gore, even when the Supreme Court stated that it should not be considered as a precedent.  Super-precendial.

The hearings are, to be sure, interesting, if for no other reason than to observe the Senators in action, such as Lindsey Graham expressing sympathy that "Justice Alito" passed away last February.

My question to Gorsuch would be focused on the stolen seat which he is eager  to fill. The Appointments Clause (Artice II, Section 2, Clause 2) The President shall have the Power to appoint, by and with the "advice and consent" of the US Senate.

 If the US Senate refuses to enter into the advice and consent process,  neither meet with, hold hearings, or vote on the nominee, has the Senate forfeited its advice and consent role, permitting the President to declare the appointment?  

 The Framers were concerned that Congress might seek to exercise appointment powers and fill offices with their supporters, and circumvent the Appointments Clause.  The discussion, no matter the answer, may keep the tarnished appointment of Gorsuch front and center.

In that same vein, Judge Gorsuch has been highly critical of some who rely on the courts to protect equal rights. In a 2005 article published shortly before his nomination to the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch wrote that "American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom,"70 improperly using constitutional litigation to "effect[]their social agenda[] on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education."71 Notably absent from his piece was any criticism of conservatives using the courts to attack, for example, diversity in education,72 the Voting Rights Act,73 gun regulations,74 and campaign finance laws

and

During his tenure on the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch has often upheld the disposal of claims before plaintiffs can present their case to a jury. While there are some exceptions noted in the discussion that follows, Judge Gorsuch has typically held plaintiffs to strict pleading standards, erred on the side of granting or affirming summary judgment against plaintiffs in close cases, and adopted a robust view of qualified immunity that imposes a heavy burden on plaintiffs who allege violations of constitutional rights against police officers. Moreover, in several cases Judge Gorsuch has advocated a limited role for federal courts, departing from his colleagues to argue that courts should "abstain" for "prudential" reasons from deciding even meritorious claims.

NAACP LDF Report

"Gorsuch is a white man, but he would add geographic and a certain degree of religious diversity to the court..."

The full twaddle.

I won't quote, as I am trying to avoid a discussion here.