Can you explain either a) what you mean by principled or b) how Gorsuch's arguments aren't principled, please? My definition of "principled" is akin to integrity but for words rather than actions: applying your beliefs consistently and consciously. (It says nothing about whether you agree with his principles.)
You say that it follows from previous scholarship, which doesn't make it unprincipled. (You also suggest that that previous scholarship proceeds from a utilitarian foundation, which Gorsuch explicitly rejects.)
For that matter, you say he "handwaves" because he says "virtually" once when dismissing consideration of the three cases decided by the King's Privy Council that seem germane but aren't. He then discusses the actual relevant Privy Council revocations, the last of which was in 1746. (After 1753, it shared revocation power with the courts and only acted on it in 1779 because the patentee twice refused to use the courts.) It's a great point and exemplary use of the history that would've been contemporaneous with the Founders.)
Regarding his unwillingness to yield Article III powers, this is exactly what his past judgements would suggest he'd do. Wasn't he billed as the guy who would go against chevron deference? This seems like the height of principle. And that's something you can say even if you disagree with everything he believes.
I think you don't like the way the modern patent system operates and see Gorsuch as a defender of that system. There's no need to smear him as unprincipled because of that, though.
You say that it follows from previous scholarship, which doesn't make it unprincipled. (You also suggest that that previous scholarship proceeds from a utilitarian foundation, which Gorsuch explicitly rejects.)
For that matter, you say he "handwaves" because he says "virtually" once when dismissing consideration of the three cases decided by the King's Privy Council that seem germane but aren't. He then discusses the actual relevant Privy Council revocations, the last of which was in 1746. (After 1753, it shared revocation power with the courts and only acted on it in 1779 because the patentee twice refused to use the courts.) It's a great point and exemplary use of the history that would've been contemporaneous with the Founders.)
Regarding his unwillingness to yield Article III powers, this is exactly what his past judgements would suggest he'd do. Wasn't he billed as the guy who would go against chevron deference? This seems like the height of principle. And that's something you can say even if you disagree with everything he believes.
I think you don't like the way the modern patent system operates and see Gorsuch as a defender of that system. There's no need to smear him as unprincipled because of that, though.