Perhaps the NYT could publish a similar analysis including Gorsuch.
Posted on 03/26/2017 11:12:31 AM PDT by BlessedBeGod
BULL
BULL
BULL
His answers on all questions were steeped in existing law which is how it should be....
It has NO bearing in how he would rule if a challenge to Roe v Wade came before the court.....
You might want to read up on how a Justice is supposed to discuss current law......not a activist judge...
Sorry. I, too, fear that Gorsuch will be much closer to Kennedy than Scalia.
Perhaps the NYT could publish a similar analysis including Gorsuch.
Trump released a short list before the election. Gorsych was on the list. The time to raise an objection was then. I don’t remember him being singled out.
Trump kept his promise, and Gorsuch is eons beyond Sandra Day O’Connor.
And Trump is NOT another Reagan. So what? Don’t let the
(imaginary) perfect be the enemy of the good.
That ... my FRiends is very revealing and troubling. He may render some good decisions. We shall see. But anyone that attends an extremist liberal church like that is ... suspect IMO.
Those questions are only asked for political purposes. Most of those senators are dumb as bricks when it comes to constitutional law.
Strikes me as a cross between John Roberts and Paul Ryan.
His church is the most concerning and revealing thing. On social issues he will be. Problem. Unleash he has cases that he has ruled on about such topics I would vote against him
Should The Man be another “Justice Roberts”, this causes worry. We believe him to be something he is not and only find the truth at the most inopportune moment. A few more of those moments is all that would completely null and void our beloved Constitution. If, indeed he wears a mask, unmask him now. President Trump should be told of the suspicions that all is not as it appears to be.
You might say bull but his words speak differently..
In the hearing he is under oath I would hope he speaks truthfully, but his answers are troubling.
Better
“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.””
I agree with you, this troubles me more than anything else, if true.
God’s laws on homosexuality are very clear and unequivocal. To regularly attend church with pro-homosexual minister tells me he doesn’t value the original text and intent of God’s law - i.e. he makes excuses to ignore it.
That is the WORST thing we need in a SCOTUS justices. If he will do that with the law of God, he will do it with the US Constitution.
“That ... my FRiends is very revealing and troubling. He may render some good decisions. We shall see. But anyone that attends an extremist liberal church like that is ... suspect IMO. “
While I tend to agree with this, he did state that he had previously rendered decisions he did not personally agree with. Di-fi even lamented he might follow the law more than his emotions. I want a Justice who will follow the constitution, not his feelings.
That statement in itself means nothing except that it is the law of the land, for right now. It does not preclude him from deciding that the law of the land was obtained through fraudulent testimony, thus concluding that the law of the land be overturned. It actually is the only way to answer that question at this point in time. Why give the Democrats ammunition to build an argument to not confirm him?
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.