Supreme Court allows atheists’ lawsuit against Florida city over prayer vigil to continue

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Since Gorsuch is one of the only interesting thinkers on the Court right now, it's always jarring to get samples of what an atrocious writer he is.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Since Gorsuch is one of the only interesting thinkers on the Court right now, it's always jarring to get samples of what an atrocious writer he is.

I find him to be one of the better writers on the Court. Kennedy was the worst of the ones who were on the Court since I've followed it closely. Whose writing do you like? 

Gorsuch certainly thinks of himself as a great writer, and consciously aspires to be one. This is why he is a bad writer. People tend to overlook this tendency when he's writing something they agree with (see BRTD referencing Bostock, and I'll make excuses for his writing in McGirt), but it's a thread through most of his opinions.

The best writer on the Court is Kagan, followed by Roberts.

I completely agree on your last point. Scalia was also a great writer when he was on the Court. Gorsuch, however, seems to write for a more general audience. His opinions seem to read more as essays or something along those lines. I don't think it makes him a bad writer, but he is certainly quite different stylistically.

I'll grant that Gorsuch's writing is approachable and his arguments in it are generally easy to follow, but in the quotes in the OP alone we have the overwritten phrase "intervention at this juncture", a sentence that begins with "really" followed by a comma, and another sentence (the next, it looks like?) that begins with "but". I think one or two of these features would be refreshingly informal for judicial writing, and I definitely think that's part of what Gorsuch is aiming for, but all three starts to look sophomoric, at least to me.

I'm far more unnerved by what Gorsuch and Thomas are saying in their comments on this. The level of standing they presuppose for cases such as these would effectively make it nearly impossible to challenge a violation of the Establishment Clause. I've already had a suspicion that Gorsuch and some of the other Justices were looking at much more than what was suggested in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. I am very concerned that Engel and its progeny might be next on the chopping block (and I'm not one to light my hair on fire with this current Court).

This Court is definitely inclined to be extremely deferential towards religious institutions, religious practices, and religious ideas in ways that could get downright dangerous pretty soon, yeah--and I'm saying this as one of the more vocally religious people on the forum.