>Continued<
Your point about Gorsuch's "claimed to be" went refuted and undefended.  Est: He hasn't claimed to be anything.  So we're only on your point about "popular mandate."  One which I asked you support with a citation of your source.  You, as a "professional student" should be aware what a citation is and how claiming anecdotal experience with a professor is not a valid citation.
Thus, from my perspective, it seems you are only interested in riding a high horse of superior understanding and denigrating my refutations as based upon bias, perspective, political hack, liberal, etc.  Or to put it more appropriately ad hominem attacks.
I still await for you to explain how Congress can be a measure for "popular" (rather than legitimate) when it is constantly in the toilet of popular approval.  There are more than twice as many people who disapprove of Congress than approve it.
Should I expect some more ad hominems or will you get around to explaining your "popular mandate?"