I do greatly appreciate what Gorsuch said about only the well-off having access to the courts

Boy, did that hit home. I know someone who could have won many lawsuits over the years and few have had better reason to sue than i, and yet the person  couldn't find a lawyer to take the case.. bc the case was based on a violation of the Constitution and there probably wasn't much $$ in it.. although you would think that seruios, egregious violations of the Constitution would be... serious... money-wise.

anyway, yeh, he was very eloquent on that topic and so i tend to want to overlook how he may have messed up in other areas... may have.. i dont know b/c i wasn't there

For better or for worse, under out current system is it not the job of a judge to do what is fair.  It is the job of a judge to do what is law says should be done, even if it is unfair.  To complain that Gorsuch, or any other judge, made a ruling that was unfair is nonsense, because meeting out fairness is not the job of a judge.  If a law is unfair, it is up to Congress, not a judge, to fix it.

For better or for worse, under out current system is it not the job of a judge to do what is fair.  It is the job of a judge to do what is law says should be done, even if it is unfair.  To complain that Gorsuch, or any other judge, made a ruling that was unfair is nonsense, because meeting out fairness is not the job of a judge.  If a law is unfair, it is up to Congress, not a judge, to fix it.

Did you read OP?
It clearly says that there was a law in that state saying that if an employee has a reasonable belief that he is endangering his own or others' lives by following co. rules, he can disregard the rules (my paraphrase, but not a loose one)
so according to my best info, Gorsuch did NOT follow the law (properly made by legislators of that state) in that case
Also something that Gorsuch and you and others seem to be forgetting or don't know is that the primary job of a Sup Ct Justice is to address the Constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the state laws (cases) that come before them. I don't want some state law upheld if it is un-Constitutional (objectively speaking)

Did you read OP?
It clearly says that there was a law in that state saying that if an employee has a reasonable belief that he is endangering his own or others' lives by following co. rules, he can disregard the rules (my paraphrase, but not a loose one)
so according to my best info, Gorsuch did NOT follow the law (properly made by legislators of that state) in that case
Also something that Gorsuch and you and others seem to be forgetting or don't know is that the primary job of a Sup Ct Justice is to address the Constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the state laws (cases) that come before them. I don't want some state law upheld if it is un-Constitutional (objectively speaking)

I did read the OP.  I also read the actual case.  It was a dispute as to how to interpret a statute.  Gorsuch was simply applying the law as he understood it.  You can disagree as to whether it was a proper interpretation, but, again, it was his job to apply to law and he understands it, not reach a "fair" decision.
Also, you are FLAT OUT WRONG that the "primary job of a Sup Ct Justice is to address the Constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the state laws (cases) that come before them."  That is one component of their job, but it is NOT their primary function.  On the contrary, the Supreme Court often simply interprets the meaning of existing statutes, that don't implicate their constitutionality.  That is exactly what was happening with the trucker case.

well, i am sorry but i wont be taking your word for it. People in the LOWER courts are the ones to hash out whether a law or statute was broken or whatever. That is why when they lose, they appeal to the Sup Court. Do you think all those lawyers at the lower level are going to argue a case where clearly a law has been broken? Well, sometimes they do.. but most of the time, there is a question at the lower court level about Constitutionality and that is why people go to the sup Ct

You SEVERELY misunderstand what I said.  I never said it was the Supreme Court's job to decide whether a statute was broken, I said it was the Supreme Court's job to determine how to interpret a statute.  Those are two very different things.  A perfrect example is a case decided by the Supreme Court just five days ago, where the Court decided how to interpret the Copyright Act of 1976.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's constitutional rights, or the constitutionality of a law.  It only had to do with how to properly interpret the copyright statute.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-866_0971.pdf