[Mrs. Don-o]

In addition to being a student of John Finnis --- probably the top living Natural Law scholar/specialist on the planet --- Gorsuch has also written about key life issues in terms that demonstrate his commitment to human life an intrinsic value.

In 2009, he authored “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” in which he argues against the practice from a standpoint of legal ethics.

“It is an argument premised on the idea that all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong,” Gorsuch wrote in the opening pages of the book.

He's never written on ruled directly on abortion, but the fact that he applies a Natural Law approach bodes very well.

He also has a textural-originalist take on the Constitution.

My assessment is that he would make a great Supreme Court justice in the tradition of Scalia.

Grant this, O Lord!

[Twinkie]

Amen

[hoosiermama]

Amen

[lula]

Amen!

[Honorary Serb]

And Amen!!!!

[savagesusie]

When the judges understand that our Constitution is derived ONLY from Natural Law theory, then we can get our “Justice” (virtue) system back again. Natural Law Theory was perfected only by the Christian Worldview. There are Universal Truths (God) and the Postmodernist sodomites in Germany in the 1800s knew that Natural Law (includes God’s Laws) had to be annihilated to flip 2000 years of ethics back to their hedonistic slave, orgy, pederastic cultures where Vice could be Virtue and marriage could be obliterated like Godwin’s wet dream. When you collapse the family and destroy the duty of parents and remove sex from meaning—you will destroy culture—make all life meaningless—with no value.

In Natural Law, destroying the intrinsic dignity that is in every human life is evil. Removing Right Reason from a Just Law is evil (unconstitutional).

We have had evil Justices, like 5 on the court now, that believes in Rule of Man only. They have to be removed-—they throw out the Constitution that they are supposed to uphold.

[jaz.357]

Thank you Mrs. Don-o.

[Verginius Rufus]

Neil Gorsuch was a student of John Finnis?

Jefferson Davis' middle name was Finis. Gorsuch must be a neo-Confederate! (Not spelled the same but close enough.)

The only good things Obama did were getting Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry out of the Senate.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Democratic slogan will be that Gorsuch is “out of the mainstream,” which is shorthand for “not appointed by a Democrat”

. . . and which is, in the context of Trump’s campaign promise to nominate Gorsuch or someone else on a list of 20 possibilities and Trump’s subsequent Electoral College victory a dog which won’t hunt.

In context of that fact, attempting to use a filibuster to deny Judge Gorsuch even a vote is what truly is “out of the mainstream.”

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

COBURN:

So you wouldn’t embrace what the Declaration of Independence says, that we have certain inalienable and God-given rights that aren’t given in the Constitution, that are ours, ours alone, and that the government doesn’t give those to us.

KAGAN:

Senator Coburn, I believe that the Constitution is an extraordinary document, and I’m not saying I do not believe that there are rights preexisting the Constitution and the laws, but my job as a justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws.

COBURN:

I understand that. I’m not talking about as a justice, I’m talking about Elena Kagan. What do you believe? Are there inalienable rights for us? Do you believe that?

KAGAN:

Senator Coburn, I think that the question of what I believe as to what people’s rights are outside the Constitution and the laws – that you should not want me to act in any way on the basis of such a belief.

If she were talking about unenumerated powers of the government, she would be be right - but this the reverse of that, and

Amendment 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

makes clear that Kagan’s argument is a fallacy.