I seem to recall a different reaction from the partisan cons when Roberts made his Obamacare decision compared to when Gorsuch made this one. The difference between the faux outrage is night and day.
I don't much care about hacks views about other hacks. Nor do I have much care for hacks views in general, especially when it comes to the SCOTUS, as it's rarely ever an informed and educated view. Furthermore, if one wishes to grab a case from history to compared individuals views and reactions, I would suggest taking one that is actually based off similar logic and structure. For example, the 2015 case of
Johnson v. United States. This was a case that where the majority opinion was actually decided on the same kind of judicial reasoning that Gorsuch used here. In that case, Alito dissented while Thomas and Kennedy wrote concurring opinions where they agreed with the judgement but not the reasoning of Scalia regarding vagueness of the law. An individuals reaction to that particular case, compared and contrasted to this one, would be far more relevant than it is with Roberts at the Obamacare law.
This is especially true, since there is little to no effort needed if one is even
mildly knowledgeable of judicial history, the various avenues of conservative jurisprudence, and the history of stalwart conservative justices, to make an extremely strong and compelling case that Gorsuch's reasoning here is one that is grounded within historically "conservative" judicial action even if the judgement's results is a more liberal one politically. This is similar to how Scalia's stance in
Texas v. Johnson being viewed as a reasonably conservative judicial view despite his judgement being in line with liberal stalwart Brennan's majority opinion.
That is decisively different than Robert's stance in
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, specifically as it related to the individual mandate's existence as a tax. Unlike Gorsuch's opinion here, or Scalia's in
Texas v. Johnson, there is little if any argument from any form of conservative jurisprudence that buttresses the path Roberts took. Textualism, originalism, and strict constructionism are the three general judicial theories that are most commonly associated with "conservative" jurisprudence; none of which are in line with (and one, texualism, diametrically opposed) the legislative intent mentality that was used by Roberts as it related to taxes.
Now does that mean there was not hacks that had issues with Roberts ruling or stance singularly because of the outcome? Of course not. Hacks are hacks, and they exist everywhere; they are the foolish types that make their judgements, their statements, their views, and their boasts continually based not on facts, evidence, reality, or principle but rather singularly on their support for or against their particular "side", however they wish to define it. Indeed, hacks can even be found on both sides as it relates to their foolish and ignorant reading of Gorsuch's action here, reacting not based on any actual worth while knowledge of judicial matters but rather simply on whether or not it benefits their desire to attack/defend Donald Trump.
However, when it comes to the actual facts, history, and information, there is a chasm of a difference between the potential break with conservative
judicial methodology here with Gorsuch compared to that of Roberts in the above referenced case. But, as I already said...hacks will be hacks. They tend to not like to deal with nuance, facts, history, or actual discussions; they just like to pound their narrative, make ignorant fallacy riddled declarations, and stomp their feet in a grand show to hide their truly hollow argument and opinion.
