Imagine two scenarios with me.

First: A female employee consistently receives high performance reviews and regular promotions. But when she applies for a VP position she is clearly qualified for, a male colleague is hired instead. She suspects it’s because of his gender, despite being much less qualified, and also because she declined the sexual advances of the CEO. She even has an email from the CEO which insinuates exactly that. She sues for gender discrimination and sexual harassment.

Second: A customer service rep is consistently late for work, rude to customers on the phone, and unwilling to be coached by her supervisor. Citing a meticulously-kept disciplinary log, the company fires the employee. She sues for gender discrimination and charges a culture of misogyny and sexism, despite the fact that the company is a cosmetics firm with a workforce that is 80% female in leadership and across all departments.

Assume for the sake of argument that each description above contains all the relevant facts. In both cases an individual is suing a large corporation. Should the courts rule the same way in both cases?

Of course not. You can’t simply look at the opposing sides, put them into broad categories like “huge corporation” and “little guy”, and act like that is enough information to render a judgment. It turns out that the law matters. Either side could be right or wrong, and the way you adjudicate that is NOT by looking at which identity group they belong to.

The optics may look bad, but what does the law say? That is the more important question by far. Yet by Chuck Schumer or Elizabeth Warren logic, the employee is de facto in the right simply by being “the little guy” and the employer in the wrong by nature of being a “big corporation.” This is absurdity.

The Democrats are upset about the way Neil Gorsuch ruled in a case pitting an employee who was terminated. I don’t know enough about the details of the case — or the law — to know whether I agree with his ruling. But when the Democrats reduce their opposition to Gorsuch down to his supposedly “taking sides” against “the little guy,” they utterly distort the purpose of the law and the courts, and they prove the charge that they are dishonest demagogues. Applying the law in such an ephemeral and emotional manner does as much good as attempting to nail jello to a wall.

Maybe Gorsuch rulings are a poor application of the law. Maybe they aren’t. But judging by the dishonest arguments and strategies of the Democrats who oppose him, don’t trust their claims of principled opposition to him. I fully support his confirmation — both in response to the Democrats’ poverty of principle, and on the merits.