Posted on 03/01/2017 4:11:12 PM PST by NKP_Vet
February 23, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Neil Gorsuch has been received by most conservative leaders as an outstanding nominee to fill the vacant position of Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. His bona fides is attested to by such authorities as the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, as well as numerous luminaries of originalist jurisprudential thought.
However, conservative endorsements do not automatically imply a pro-life and pro-family worldview, and questions have been raised about Gorsuch’s views on sexual morality as well as the binding nature of bad judicial precedents. The question therefore remains for defenders of the right to life and family: what are we to expect of Gorsuch with regard to these crucial questions? Would Gorsuch’s tenure on the court be a beneficial one for life and family, and if so, how much?
Gorsuch’s ideological background and legal career
Neil McGill Gorsuch, 49, is the son of two career attorneys, and spent much of his teen years in Washington, D.C. while his mother served under Ronald Reagan as the first woman to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Gorsuch’s family was staunchly Republican and militantly conservative, at least on issues regarding fiscal restraint and economic freedom. The perspective held by Gorsuch’s parents on social issues is unclear.
After graduating from the elite Jesuit Georgetown Preparatory School in Washington, D.C., Gorsuch went on to major in political science at Columbia, where he graduated cum laude in only three years and was elected to the elite Phi Beta Kappa honor society. Both at Georgetown Prep and Columbia, which were dominated by liberal students and faculty, Gorsuch established himself as a cautious academic with conservative tendencies who enjoyed entering into the fray of discussion without offending his opponents or taking positions that might be perceived as extreme.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Which would put him into the Garden of Aidan (pun intended)....
The first bad ruling Gorsuch makes, Trump should stack the Court...
I hope he is not a legal contortionist as Roberts proved to be. The 0bamacare problems exist today because of his dereliction.
I’d pray that St. John’s vastly overplays its lefty hand and hounds him out... actually since he’s going to be living in Washington, DC maybe Clarence Thomas could invite him to his church.
The trained philosophers on FR will be concerned about the differences between Finnis/ Grisez version of the Natural Law and that of Aquinas. Finnis/G’s thoughts on the matter allows Gorsuch to disappoint eventually in his legal decisions.
It will not be the Natural Law of the founding documents which diluted Aquinas somewahat, but which are more aligned to Aquinas than are Finnis/G which will influence Gorsuch.
All IMHO.
Those scales are obviously B.S., in so far as they contradict each other. The world is not one-dimensional.
“Arch conservative’ is a term the left uses to smear our people. You just used it. Did you ever hear of an arch-liberal?
Bork was a legal positivist, too, at the time he was being considered for the SC. He might have developed more interest in Thomistic natural-law philosophy as he became a Catholic after that. So Gorsuch may be no more of a wild card than Bork would have been--if he hadn't been Star Chambered by the Chappaquiddick River Pilot.
A sincere originalist could be described as someone who insists on making Congress do its job of writing the laws, and unwilling to pull America's chestnuts out of the fire (or throw them into the fire) by legislating from the bench. Gorsuch could simply be that someone.
I frankly can't imagine sharing his comfort level about sodomy and quasi-legal enshrinements of it. But men who are very willful, as he shows signs of being, have been known to carry on for decades, driving people crazy who expected them to rule in favor of their emotions instead of insisting on a text-supported approach that has been their only comfortable position in a contradictory world.
They essentially picked the list of justice candidates, not sure why it had Diane Sykes and this guy. Are there no reliable candidates?
By virtue signaling his disapproval of Trump on his first day on Capitol Hill, Gorsuch indicated that he is more of a player than a thinker, a club man than a library man.
He will be confirmed, he will disappoint, and we will need to have a plan to deal with it.
There are really no good plans, though, if the Court goes 6-3.
Total B.S. article. This is like one of those articles that said Trump was not conservative during the election of 2016. It’s total malarkey!
Gorsuch is to Right of Scalia and Thomas. Gorsuch actually worked under Scalia too at the SCOTUS.
This is an attempt to scuttle Gorsuch from the right. Gorsuch is a HUGE 2nd Amendment, Constitutional and Bill of Rights Judge. This article is complete B.S.
{Commenting without having read the article}
Gorsuch is guaranteed to be head and shoulders better than anyone Illary would have nominated.
All of those social issues that have been in the court are a result of Earl Warren thinking the 14th Amendment was about a right to privacy and not stopping states from discriminating against newly freed slaves.
There have been several justices that appeared to be ideal only to turn out bad - Earl Warren is the prime example. A Justice is a lot like a mutual fund with the disclaimer that past performance is no guarantee of future success. Once he is seated, he’s set for life and under no control.
Democrats haven’t had a justice turn conservative since Whizzer White under John Kennedy. Republicans got Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, Souter, Roberts, O’Connor, Kennedy, Potter Stewart, and a few others. That’s a lot of misses by one side with so much at stake.
Like Hillary’s gang of arch-liberals? I think it’s a funny term. It should be used more.
Your description of St. John’s Episcopal (Boulder) is exactly why I left ECUSA fifteen years ago.
My parents were married in the Episcopal Church in 1945, I was baptised there in 1946, as were my siblings as they came along. I was married, my kids were baptised, my folks buried, and my first son married there. We had a history.
Female priests, gay clergy, marriage of gays, and the worship of the gods of tolerance, diversity, and inclusiveness drove my wife and me out. Finding out about Neil Gorsuch membership in this ‘church’ is a deal-breaker for me.
I don’t disagree, but Cruz and Lee would love to see President Trump have a failure.
I have a feeling Gorsuch will turn left over time.
That would be the Dyke Bridge that has since disintegrated and Edgartown Harbor prior to South Beach Break.
Very few people could swim that tide unless it was dead low.
Trump tell you that himself?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.