I was just writing something very similar. This isn't the first time he's joined the liberals against perceived conservative orthodoxy; it's just the highest profile time. I think for most humans, of which Justices are obviously a subset, ideology stops at results. That is, whatever your ideological bent, you'll figure out a way to justify the desired outcome regardless of what you've said or indicated in the past. Gorsuch, on the other hand, appears to be extremely comfortable with his point of view, even in the times when it takes him to unexpected places. Although I rarely agree with him, I respect that a lot more than a flip flopper like the guy he replaced. You're the lawyer, so I'm sure you have a deeper perspective than me, but what I think is important to a functional rules based system is expectation of what the law is or ought to be given the body of rulings out there and the personalities likely to rule on future cases. When we have judges and justices who are willing to support and ends without regard to means it inhibits our ability to behave in a way that we can say with some certainty conforms to the law. Anyway, props to Gorsuch for going with his head on this one.
Indeed, and I think this is something that judges do more often than not. But it also goes to show how ridiculous the whole "original intent" argument is, because that is still a matter of interpretation.
I'm a casual Court watcher, so everything I read I read with a layman's eye. It is always striking to me how many cases are decided 9-0. Those are clearly not the cases that typically garner the headlines, but it's nice to know that our judiciary can come to broadly similar conclusions given a set of laws and facts. That would seem to be the way you would most often want it in a rules based system where the law is applied dispassionately. Of course, culture war type stuff is rarely if ever dispassionate for anyone, even lawyers who believe themselves to be so.