What?! What planet are you living on? Most consider Gorsuch a Scalia clone. Why do you think he isn't conservative/originist enough? Unbelievable.
As far as Reagan goes, you left out the fact he nominated Robert Bork but Bork was borked. Kennedy nor O'Connor were anywhere near as left-wing as Souter. Both were swing-vote moderates.
Souter was as bad Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg. There is absolutely not excuse for putting up someone that liberal.
Most considered Souter the same way at the time Bush nominated him. He was called "Bork without a paper trail", a "homerun for conservatives", and "a confirmable strict constructionist" Only one of DOZENS of conservative organizations opposed him at the time. The rest immediately got on aboard with the nomination and applauded Bush for it. He was marketed as a strict constructionist rock-ribbed conservative justice and everyone who went to law school with him and knew him personally vouched for him.
>> Why do you think he isn't conservative/originist enough? Unbelievable. <<
His ENTIRE career before he was nominated, perhaps? Have you read anything about his personal life? The fact he left the Catholic Church for some ultra liberal "progressive" activist church with a Trump hating feminazi "womyn" pastor? The fact that he's a Bush crony that clerked for Anthony Kennedy? The fact he insulted Trump AFTER Trump nominated him? The fact he immediately picked a Sotomayor clerk to work for him on SCOTUS? The fact he was just the "lone Republican judge" to join the liberal bloc on a 5-4 victory for the liberal wing of the court? Are you aware he says abortion and gay marriage are super duper settled "rights?" Do you base your opinion of him being an "conservative/originist" solely on the Trump White House and conservative talking heads CLAIMING he is, as was used to "prove" Souter was because the Bush white house and conservative organizations say he was?
Never happened that someone "that liberal" was presented for confirmation. You are simply engaging in history revisionism. No one knew Souter was liberal, and no Republican judge ever testifies "Put me on the court, and I promise to stab you in the back and be an activist liberal judge once I get on the court"
Souter's fan club marketed him as a strict-constructionist Bork-like judge, just without any paper trail to prove it. He was an "originalist" solely because they said he was.
Gorsuch's fan club likewise marketed him as a strict-constructionist Bork-like judge, just without any paper trail to prove it. He was an "originalist" solely because they said he was.
The main difference: Souter was being picked to replace a liberal judge, and had to get confirmed by a Democrat majority Senate. Gorsuch was being picked to replace an iconic conservative judge, and had to get confirmed by a Republican majority Senate.
And here's another interesting difference: Despite facing a majority Democrat Senate, Souter NEVER said Roe v. Wade was super duper settled law and publicly pledged to the Senate he would uphold it. But Gorsuch did. If he IS a "Scalia-like judge", then he simply lied to a Republican majority Senate and pretended to be more liberal than he actually is. I'd find it bizarre that a judge would feel the need to do that when facing a Republican Senate, given the Democrats did NOT have the votes to defeat him.