Again, you are ignorantly mistaking political and judicial ideology; you are conflating political results with jurisprudence. This is illustrated wonderfully by Antonin Scalia, a man often depicted as a conservative zealot upon the court, when indicating that, as King, he'd ban the burning of flags but as a SCOTUS judge bound by the constitution he could not rule anything other than it being protected speech. Justices are not meant to make their judgements based on what OUTCOME they want but rather based on what the law says. This is especially true of conservative judicial ideology, which eschews greatly the idea of upholding or changing a law due to the "good" that it would potentially cause.
In Gorsuch's estimation, the law was far to vague and provided far too much power to the government while being too unclear to allow someone to reasonably understand how their actions may react with the law. Gorsuch's opinion gives zero indication as to what or how he'd prefer the law ultimately to be written as it relates to what type of violations would lead to deportation; he simply wishes for it to be made more clear. It is an opinion that is agnostic to the notion of what will cause a deportation, focusing instead on simply desiring those things to be clearly defined.
Nothing about that is inherently liberal, especially from a judicial stand point. What the legislature does in rewriting the law is irrelevant to the judicial opinion on the matter. What it "likely means" is irrelevant, and should be irrelevant, as it relates to the actual case law.
What is even more hilarious about this, as you sit here agape at the idea that someone with a far better grasp on this than you could dare have a straight face, is you're attempting to take an instance where Gorsuch is following textual jurisprudence over legislative intent in order to declare something unconstitutional and are desperately attempting to compare that as an direct analog to an instance where a justice utilized legislative intent over textualism in an attempt to laughably declare people hypocritical.
I understand that greater understanding, more in depth knowledge, and actual nuance are not things that hacks tend to enjoy utilizing as it makes their propagandizing and pandering points far more difficult to be successful, but forgive me if I'm not going to ignore the realities of judicial case law and theory in order to drop myself to the same base elementary level that you seem to wish to wallow in on this matter.
