Ever since Bork, Supreme Court nominees are being more cautious with their responses to questions during the confirmation hearings, better to go by Goresuch actual record on the bench which has been solid. If Goresuch was really as bad as the article seems to suggests then Schumer wouldn’t be so desperately pushing to filibuster him. His rulings have been solid on issues like religious liberty among other things, and he’s certainly by far better than anyone Hillary would’ve nominated. Back in the days of his nomination proceedings, Scalia was able to speak more freely without having to worry as much about being Borked. So when comparing Scalia to Goresuch, a better gauge is his actual bench record.
Your excellent commentary and view of the situation is to be admired.