If it were me, he would have walked out the door because I would have asked. It's interesting to see the take on this.
'It is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court,' Gorsuch told the Senate Judiciary Committee, 'so a good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.'
Yes, but a terrible one that has denied the right to life to nearly 60 million unborn babies.
But Gorsuch insisted the case's status as a repeatedly defended decision 'adds to the determinacy of the law. What was once a hotly contested issue is no longer a hotly contested issue. We move forward.'
How can he possibly say that it's "no longer a hotly contested issue?" It's probably the most contested issue decided by the court in this country. People win and lose elections on this issue.
It's interesting to see this writer's take and the take of Life News which saw it differently:
Judge Neil Gorsuch today refused to go along with an assumption by pro-abortion Senator Dianne Feinstein that the Roe versus Wade abortion case is “super precedent.”
Feinstein attempted to trap the appeals court judge into agreeing that the infamous Roe case and its decision allowing unlimited abortions is a “super precedent” that cannot be overturned. Gorsuch did not take the bait and left himself room to overturn the pro-abortion decision should he be affirmed for the Supreme Court.
Do you view Roe as “super precedent?” Feinstein asked.
Gorsuch merely said: “It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that, yes.”
Feinstein, attempted to assert her position, replied: “Dozens.”
http://www.lifenews.com/2017/03/21/judge-neil-gorsuch-refuses-to-say-roe-v-wade-case-for-unlimited-abortions-is-super-precedent/
The Life News article continues and is very positive with regards to Gorsuch and pro-life issues.
My sincere hope it that he will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but I've felt nervous about him. I have no idea why as the pro-life camp seems very positive towards him including pro-life stalwarts since Rick Santorum. Maybe it's in part because the left has been complimentary towards him on networks like CNN. Hopefully, someday Roe vs. Wade is overturned and I'll find out I had no reason to be nervous at all.
Well, bye. And don’t let the door hit your a** on the way out.
When the Bill of Rights (BoR) was drafted, the states decided that they didn’t have to respect the rights expressly protected by the BoR. The states required only the feds to respect those rights.
So hypothetically speaking, even if the Founding States had included the express right to have an abortion in the BoR, there was nothing in the Constitution stopping the states from prohibiting abortion. Only the feds couldn’t deny women such a right.
But when the states ratified the 14th Amendment (14A) they likewise obligated themselves to respect the rights that they amend the Constitution to expressly protect.
In fact, the congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had clearly indicated that the amendment applies only those rights that the states amend the Constitution to expressly protect to the states.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” —John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
But since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the so-called “constitutional” right to have an abortion, the state sovereignty-ignoring justices who decided Roe v. Wade against the states did so without having a constitutionally enumerated right to have an abortion to throw at the states.
In other words, corrupt justices wrongly politically created the so-called “constitutional” right to have an abortion from the bench, ignoring that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had condemned interpolations of the Constitution.
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added].” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
As a consequence of the Court’s unconstitutional decision in Roe v. Wade imo, lawless Democrats began to recognize that they had a source of unending votes to become career politicians.
More specifically, they began exploiting low-information women, women who evidently don’t understand the necessity of constitutionally enumerated rights.
In other words, lawless Democrats began making use of the 19th Amendment, in conjunction with the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, to start winning the votes of many generations of women. Democrats did so by giving women the Constitution-ignoring assurance that lawmakers would be able to insure a majority of pro-abortion activist justices on the Supreme Court as long as women kept electing pro-abortion Democrats to office.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, pro-abortion, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
I’m not sure what to make of his responses. He knows he’s being hunted by the dems, that they’re looking for something to raise a ruckus over. If you parse him in that light, he could just be evading them, and doing a pretty good job of it. He opted not to have his nomination stalled or to be tarred as an ideologue on the hill of Roe v. Wade. At the same time, nothing in his response precludes the possibility of his deciding to overturn it given the right case and the right argument. He merely affirmed the fact that Roe is established precedent and that he would treat it as such per the conventions of our system. That doesn’t mean it can’t be overturned. He may turn out to he an unprincipled squish but it could also be that he’s just keeping his head down while he runs the gauntlet here.
When I could no longer bring children into an Episcopal Church because of its open heresy at the national, level regarding female ordination, abortion and homosexuality, I moved on.
I have to say, though, that EVERY SINGLE cradle Catholic of my acquaintance who converted did so either because they were female and wanted to be a priest, or because they were radically pro-abortion or pro-gay.
My experience is obviously limited. But Judge Gorsuch's conversion from Catholicism to the apostate and heretical ECUSA (the head of whose Divinity School in Cambridge MA declared abortion a blessing) after he reached the age of reason is very, very concerning.
I daresay I am uneasy about Gorsuch. He could be another Souter. Or he could simply be saying what he needs to say just to get past these a-holes.
Job ONE, in fact the ONLY job of a supreme court nominee is to get CONFIRMED.
After that, you can do as you like. We will just have to wait and see.
I think he will be confirmed, 60 or 60 plus votes. Dems are pissed because this was an Obama seat on the court AND the first not-Hilary’s seat, not to mention the first Trump seat. It’s a “triple whammy” seat.
The NEXT pick will be the one the Dems will REALLY fight over. Let’s hope that by then that we have enough Republicans in the Senate, that it won’t matter.
I do NOT like this guy.
A carefully-worded response, designed to not give the Democrats anything they can use to rally opposition against him, while at the same time not committing himself to accord Roe.v.Wade any "super" status as an non-overturnable precedent.
His religious affiliation also seems to be cause for concern.
We have to be mindful that these hearings are so much theater and sadly he must play along. If he came out and clearly defined his position on abortion on either side he would have been dumped. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
We cannot ignore the fact that after he received his law degree, he purposely sought out Professor John Finnis at Oxford. Gorsuch has deeply steeped himself in natural law theory and Finnis was supposedly the most highly regarded teacher in the world at the time.
From wiki: In July 2006, Gorsuch’s book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, It was developed from his doctoral thesis.
I have not read it but understand that it is solidly pro-life.
Natural Law IS Pro-Life by default. That is a very important consideration in this situation.
All the Pro-Life groups I have seen are positive on this nomination.
We also cannot discount the vetting process. I doubt they would have passed him if they saw serious concerns in this area. This is of course placing significant trust in Trump. YMMV.
The bottom line is that we cannot know with certainty any nomination for our side. Only the libs enjoy that certainty.
At this point I remain cautiously optimistic. Cautiously.
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
That is the chief concern, that he may treat Roe vs. Wade as a precedent that should not be overturned solely due to it having been around and entrenched for decades.