Anyone reading the left-wing attacks on Judge Neil Gorsuch would hardly recognize the true Gorsuch.

The claims of the critics can be easily summed up. They say that Judge Gorsuch is a right-wing extremist who will twist the law and the Constitution to match his own beliefs, and who does not recognize the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

None of these assertions hold up under scrutiny.

Gorsuch is no extremist. He has been praised by liberals who would never make such kind comments about anyone not in the center-right mainstream. Neal Katyal, who was acting Solicitor General for Obama, wrote in the New York Times that Gorsuch “brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court” and is one “who will stand up for the rule of law” in defense of the Constitution.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz noted that "I don't think it would be fair to call him an extreme right-wing ideologue; that doesn't seem to fit what I know about him." Dershowitz predicted that Gorsuch would be “hard to oppose on the merits.”

Berkeley law professor Dan Farber said that reading Gorsuch’s opinions convinced him that the nominee “is a thoughtful, principled judge” who will defend the Constitution’s separation of powers.

People for the American Way (PFAW) provided information which, while they seem not have realized it, bolsters Gorsuch’s reputation as a fair man who interprets the law as written. According to PFAW, Gorsuch heard fifteen cases involving employer-labor disputes. He ruled in favor of employers eight times, in favor of labor four times, and against both three times. That is clearly not the record of a judge who always, automatically, finds a way to rule in favor of employers. It sounds more like a judge who goes where the law leads, showing no favoritism.

When it comes to his alleged disregard of constitutional rights, the liberals contradict themselves. One of their biggest complaints about Gorsuch is his support for the First Amendment religious freedom rights of the owners of Hobby Lobby, rights which ObamaCare regulations had threatened to violate. Not only did Gorsuch support the First Amendment in that case, but his position was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Judge Gorsuch has also ruled in favor of the religious rights of American Indians and Muslims, as well as defending the public display of the Ten Commandments and crosses. He has defended freedom of speech in many cases.

Understanding why someone such as Sen. Ron Wyden would say “Gorsuch represents a breathtaking retreat from the notion that Americans have fundamental Constitutional rights” requires looking at the Judge through the perspective expressed by the blogger who said that Gorsuch “takes a cramped and backward-looking view of the Constitution.” What they mean is that Gorsuch defends the rights actually written into the Constitution, such as the First and Second Amendments. What his critics want is a judge who will invent new “rights” not found in the Constitution while allowing government to ignore the actual document.

That is why we can be glad that Donald Trump, and not Hillary Clinton, made this nomination.