Posted on 03/26/2017 11:12:31 AM PDT by BlessedBeGod
March 24, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — I have been holding my opinion on Neil Gorsuch. From the time he was announced as Trump’s highly lauded Supreme Court nominee and then more information started to come out about him, there have been growing uncomfortable feelings about the nomination. And now, as the confirmation hearings have been underway, I am worried.
Despite effusive praise from numerous pro-life and pro-family leaders, this man is NOT, as Trump has repeatedly been told, another Scalia. In my view, the President has been misled – although Gorsuch does have praiseworthy characteristics as a justice and has made some excellent, major rulings.
But can we trust that he will courageously rule as the nation desperately needs him to rule on all of the most crucial issues? I think there are now legitimate doubts, although on many issues he will likely rule well.
During day three of the Senate confirmation hearings, Gorsuch was asked by Senator Dick Durbin whether the intentional taking of unborn life is wrong.
He responded, "The Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person, for purposes of the 14th Amendment. That [decision] is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land."
To me, there was something unnerving about how far he went in accepting the current realities of that horrendous decision that was based on lies and deliberate misinterpretation of the Constitution.
Gorsuch on Obergefell
Also during the confirmation hearings, in response to a question about same-sex “marriage” and the results of the Obergefell decision – which many consider an even more outrageously corrupt, activist Supreme Court decision than Roe v Wade — Gorsuch stated it “is absolutely settled law."
He did not just call it “settled law,” which one could say, well, yes, in legal terms that is what it could be said to be … for now. But he unnecessarily and disturbingly added the word “absolutely.” Why did he go to that length?
That comment seemed to indicate Gorsuch is not a full constitutional originalist. No originalist would ever make such a comment that appears to betray the Constitution and the intentions of the Founders – considering the travesty of the Obergefell decision.
Now we likely know why Trump also called Obergefell “settled law” in response to a question during a 60 Minutes interview. He had likely been talking to Gorsuch.
Justice Scalia had ripped the Obergefell decision to shreds for its inventions of nonexistent rights out of thin air, as he did with many other judicial activist decisions by his peers on the court and in lower courts. He described the decision as the "furthest imaginable extension of the Supreme Court doing whatever it wants." He added, "Do you really want your judges to rewrite the Constitution? I don't know how you can get more extreme than that."
Scalia even went so far as to argue that legalizing same-sex "marriage" was a “threat to American democracy.”
Gorsuch's criticism of Trump
It is understandable that Gorsuch would be circumspect during his confirmation hearings in response to questions about particular cases, but he has seemed to exhibit a pro-judicial arrogance, deferring too much to the reputations and status of justices who in very many cases in these times do not at all deserve such deference.
Many deserve harsh criticism, if not condemnation and censure. It is long overdue.
I was taken aback by Gorsuch’s publicly expressed rebuke of Donald Trump’s legitimate criticisms of the court ruling that rejected his first immigration Executive Order.
Trump accused the appellate court of being “so political.” He labeled a judge who ruled on his executive order a “so-called judge” and referred to the ruling as “ridiculous.”
Perhaps Trump should not have used the term “so-called judge,” but the ruling was indeed “ridiculous” and totally out-of-order. It clearly violated established presidential privilege and was a raw abuse of the powers of the court for partisan and ideological intentions.
It was about time someone in high authority called judicial activist justices to account. They have been destroying the rule of law in America and trashing the Constitution. For years they have been far overstepping their Constitutional authority.
Gorsuch told a senator that the president’s comments were “demoralizing and disheartening.” Did he really have to go that far? Why could he not have acknowledged that yes, there have been many very questionable rulings by activist judges in recent decades?
The Washington Post wrote that “Gorsuch ‘stated very emotionally and strongly his belief in his fellow judges’ integrity and the principle of judicial independence.”’ Really? All judges, given the many outrageous decisions we have seen?
Justice Scalia never held back and had no regard for popular opinions, political correctness or what the other justices thought about him. As well, his solid Catholic Christian formation taught him about right and wrong and his serious duty to the American people and to God to honor the Constitution and the intentions of the Founding Fathers. He was not perfect, but he frequently issued highly prinicipled legal opinions.
Gorsuch’s comment that Obergefell “is absolutely settled law" could be seen to have been insulting to judicial conservatives. I would go so far to say it indicated clear danger about how he would rule on the court – on certain issues.
Following are some of the stories that we published on the Obergefell decision:
Obergefell is so awful that it makes Dred Scott look like a piece of lawyerly precision
Trump undermined Justices Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito in saying marriage issue ‘settled’
Serious questions about Gorsuch and homosexuality
There have also been other signs about Gorsuch that too many have tended to pooh-pooh as being significant. Well, they are important signs.
A Feb. 11 New York Times article indicated that Gorsuch is pro-homosexual. This may explain his excessively accepting comment on the Obergefell decision.
In a LifeSite article on the Times report, we noted,
“in his personal relationships with homosexual friends and co-workers, Judge Gorsuch has been very approving of homosexual relationships.”
Gorsuch also attends a socially liberal Episcopal church in Boulder, led by a pro-LGBT female pastor, Rev. Jill Springer, who reportedly supports homosexual “marriage.”
Matthew Hoffman, in his in-depth report on Gorsuch expands on Springer's liberal excesses,
"According to an exposé published by the Daily Mail, she openly supports homosexual “marriage” and conducts blessings of same-sex couples, and attended the ultra-feminist “Women’s March on Washington” to protest the Trump presidency. She also denounced “criticism and disrespectful rhetoric” regarding Islam following the San Bernadino terrorist attack in 2015. The Washington Post’s own investigation of the parish also found that the pastor engages in leftist political activism."
And yet, Hoffman reports,
"Gorsuch and his family are far from being mere passive participants in the church. Gorsuch himself serves as an usher, and his wife as a lector, and his two daughters have served as acolytes during worship services."
and
"The Episcopal Church has also issued statements opposing any legal restrictions on the killing of the unborn, and holding that abortion can be justified in cases of risks to the physical or mental health of the mother, rape, incest, or fetal malformation."
There is no way that Justice Scalia approved of homosexual relationships. He would never have regularly attended such a liberal Church as Gorsuch has and Scalia would have run from a parish with a pro-LGBT pastor that strongly supports homosexual “marriage” and opposes any legal restrictions on abortion.
Scalia, from his orthodox Catholic Christian formation and affiliation, knew right from wrong and was frequently outspoken about such matters when circumstances demanded it. He did not deprive those who needed to hear uncomfortable truths from the charity of those truths.
The LifeSite article on the NY Times report continued that,
… Gorsuch reacted when his close friend and former Harvard classmate Phil Berg told him that he had a "boyfriend."
"He [Gorsuch] didn't skip a beat," Berg said, saying that the conversation led to a "special bond" between he and Gorsuch. "It was a huge deal for me, and it made a lasting impression."
Similarly, the Harvard Crimson reports that Gorsuch offered Harvard classmate Berg "unwavering support" when Berg "came out" to him as homosexual.
and,
Along the same lines, Joshua Goodbaum, a former clerk to Gorsuch, told the Times that his boss was “thrilled” for him and his “husband” when they got same-sex-“married” in 2014:
“He was actually kind of syrupy about it. I remember him saying, ‘You’re going to see how wonderful this is for your relationship,’’’ Goodbaum said.
Gorsuch is said to be a strong proponent of Natural Law. His above noted statements and actions on homosexuality defy that claim.
As well, no authentic, believing Christian would ever offer such affirmation to persons engaged in behavior that threatened serious emotional, psychological, and physical harm, and especially devastating spiritual harm.
I cannot remotely fathom Justice Antonin Scalia ever having been so blind to his sacred responsibility to his fellow man as Neil Gorsuch appeared to exhibit (if these quotes are true) in response to his friends with same-sex attractions.
I hope my concerns about Gorsuch are not as serious as they seem, but the things noted here cannot be ignored.
We must continue to pray for the best outcome for the next justice of the Supreme Court. May God’s will be done on this because of the crucial importance of this and future Supreme Court nominations for the welfare of the United States.
Agreed. Gorsuch is an authoritarian.
Roe vs Wade....that's a different story.
The Freedom to kill another human being in their weakest stage is an abomination.
Anyone who would stay in his radical church is no Scalia that is for sure. I am more than a little concerned about this guy but there is no stopping him so we just have to pray for the best.
Sounds like an attempt to weaken support. Ignore.
Correct He's no Scalia, but he's not as bad as choosing someone merely because she's a wise latina with a vagina.
He goes to a very liberal church in a liberal part of Colorado,correct?
This guy is John Roberts at best and A.Kennedy at worst.imo
I just want a judge who can apply the law as it exists to a set of facts and will interpret and apply the Constitution as our Framers intended it. A judge who will look to the plain meaning of the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.
That may result in the judge having to make some rulings he finds personally repugnant. He has the same remedy for that as we do—lobby the legislature to get the law changed.
His own personal views on any topic mean NOTHING. Provided, of course that he is if the truly sterling character we must demand for our judiciary.
Thin soup.
Besides, the worry is moot. He’s going to be confirmed. If for some reason he isn’t, it won’t be because of the things brought up above.
Seems to me he’s answering questions in an indifferent manner, which is how it’s supposed to be. If he starts inserting his personal opinions, he’s no better than a liberal activist justice. He should follow the letter of the law and answer questions with that at the forefront.
He spoke truthfully and his answers are not troubling in the least......
If he answered he wanted to overturn Roe v Wade, he would have been required to recuse himself when the case came before the court....
Not to mention he would never be confirmed
So effectively, by stating he will follow the law when considering a previous ruling, he now is open to consider new cases.....
These kind of questions of Supreme Court nominees are simply trap questions....to either bury their appointment or remove them from considering a case....
There never will be another Justice Scalia, just as there never will be another Justice Thomas. They are original thinkers with a deep sense of intellectual honesty.
Gorsuch could prove to be an original thinker with intellectual honesty. From what I have seen so far, I want to give him the opportunity. He is a very good choice.
The enemy of the Good is perfection. -Voltaire
To me there's something equally unnerving in the author's portrayal of Gorsuch and his obliviousness to the process of Q&A when it comes down to confirming a new SCOTUS.........
Ever since Bork, Supreme Court nominees are being more cautious with their responses to questions during the confirmation hearings, better to go by Goresuch actual record on the bench which has been solid. If Goresuch was really as bad as the article seems to suggests then Schumer wouldn’t be so desperately pushing to filibuster him. His rulings have been solid on issues like religious liberty among other things, and he’s certainly by far better than anyone Hillary would’ve nominated. Back in the days of his nomination proceedings, Scalia was able to speak more freely without having to worry as much about being Borked. So when comparing Scalia to Goresuch, a better gauge is his actual bench record.
Your excellent commentary and view of the situation is to be admired.
The Presidential debates presented a clear choice to the American people in regards to SCOTUS: platform activism versus constitutional adherence and the letter of the law.
This character assassination has nothing to do with Goresuch’s abilities to judge if a law is unconstitutional.
Alright, let me try this on you... Trump knows that Kennedy is going to pull the pin this summer. He now has replaced Kennedy with Gorsuch and saved his firepower for the real Scalia replacement when Kennedy retires. By then, the nuclear option will have been used on an obviously innocuous candidate so when they use it on the next candidate it won’t engender disfavor by the public at large.
We’ll see.
His leaving the Catholic Church for a left wing church is very troubling to me and I am an Agnostic
“...a socially liberal Episcopal church...”
As I said in another thread some days ago, that is pretty much a deal breaker for me, having “escaped” from that denomination fifteen years ago.
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.