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?
Who gives rat's behind if Gorsuch sacrifices toads to Satan in his spare time if his rulings are conservative?
Most analysis I've seen of his rulings put him as far to the right as Clarence Thomas.
How much do you want to bet he'll bet a reliable Scalia-like justice for decades?