Why, you may ask, is a Supreme Court justice making an appearance on Fox and Friends right after gutting the Voting Rights Act? Of course it's to pimp his new children's book extolling the virtues of the Founding Fathers on this, the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

I wouldn't ordinarily make a big deal out of this, because Supreme Court justices routinely pimp their books. But this one is so utterly cynical and egregious that I couldn't let it pass me by, especially this piece of tripe, uttered after Ainsley gives him appropriate strokes for how wonderful the book is.

Ainsley reads the quote:

You write, First, all men are created equal, the rich and the poor, the popular and the unpopular, all are equal in God's eyes and should be equal under law.

Second, each person enjoys rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that are God-given.

Those rights are unalienable beyond the reach of government.

Third, to preserve those rights, the people have another right, the right to rule themselves.

The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.

I love that you highlight that our rights are actually from God, and our founders knew that.

ACTUALLY Ainsley, they're not. For a self-proclaimed "originalist", Neil Gorsuch is full of it. Jefferson intentionally used the terms "Nature's God" and "their Creator" to be ambiguous and more inclusive of those who were not believers in the Christian God.

But I digress. This is the part that really sent my irony meter soaring. Ainsley asks what he thinks children need to learn about the Constitution and our founders, and this is his answer.

GORSUCH: Well, those three great ideas in the Declaration are perfect, and it's a journey to realize them, and it has been throughout our history.

But each generation has to recommit themselves to those ideas.

You know, we're not a nation founded on a common religion or heritage.

We're founded around ideas.

And so the torch passes to each new generation to carry on those ideas.

Nothing says passing the torch to each new generation like gutting the Voting Rights Act and killing Roe v Wade so that the only group who possibly can pursue happiness, have equality, life and liberty are rich old white men. Women certainly can't. And neither can people of color, who were regarded in 1776 as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of the vote, which was not even theirs to give, but their owner's.

For a guy who touts the whole idea of self-government and not having a king, he signed off on John Roberts' immunity decision and then went out and defended it. You remember that immunity decision, right? It's the one that magically turns the president into a king, the very thing the framers were rebelling against.

And then there is this:

EARHARDT: As an originalist, how do you balance the literal text of the Constitution with more modern issues that maybe the framers couldn't have anticipated, like A.I. or Internet issues?

GORSUCH: Well, you know, one of the things that the framers of the Declaration really wanted was independent judges to interpret and apply the law who were not bound down by politics.

They fought a revolution against a king who had taken control of the judiciary himself.

And so an originalist tries to be faithful to the original written word of the Constitution and apply it.

Yes, it has to.

It has to be applied to new facts and circumstances.

But the terms of that document cannot be changed by nine old people in Washington.

That's not our job.

Oh, excuse me while I gag on the bullshit in that last riff. This is a guy who stole the seat intended for Merrick Garland, who dutifully serves the King with each decision he hands down with his colleagues and John Roberts taking rights and liberties AWAY from people, not protecting them at all. This is the guy who took a fillet knife to the rights of everyone but rich white folks extolling the nonpolitical independent judiciary? While appearing on the right wing propaganda network Fox News? THAT GUY?

This is Exhibit Zillion Zillion for why the court must be expanded and rebalanced. While they're at it, they can assign the issues like women's rights and the like to a rotating panel of appellate judges, leaving SCOTUS to rule on corporate and diplomatic matters, as the founders once intended.