BREAKING: President Trump’s Pick for SUPREME COURT Has Just Been Revealed… Meet Neil Gorsuch

[roamer_1]

Can you explain to me how his decisions in regards to Hobby Lobby and The Little Sisters as well as the book he authored makes him ambiguous on life?

You can polish the turd all you like... But to be in a position to become SCOTUS without an unequivocal position on LIFE hardly brings confidence.

[Frank Cannon]

You can polish the turd all you like... But to be in a position to become SCOTUS without an unequivocal position on LIFE hardly brings confidence.

Did you support John Roberts?

[roamer_1]

Did you support John Roberts?

No, the best I could get to was indifference.

[Gefn]

I'm happy with this choice.

He's also extremely handsome, which is a nice bonus, but he seems like a very nice man in every regard.

[Smokin Joe]

He attends a pro-abortion, anti-gun church


Gorsuch's Episcopalian church has declared its "unequivocal opposition" to pro-life laws and he has said nothing publicly pro-life. In addition, his church has a rapid response team to lobby against guns when the state legislature has hearings on gun bills.

I have been looking for his position on the RKBA. If anyone has info, please link it.
Everyone seems excited that he is from Colorado.
Meh.
Colorado has such draconian gun laws they drove much of Magpul's production out of the state with magazine capacity rules. In addition, the state is a hotbed of liberals and tree-hugger types who wanted to ban fraccing, and among other things legalized pot for recreational use. It is the most californicated of the Western States.
I'd want more time to vett the guy before I went all gaga over his nomination.

It may be that he is a great nominee, but I'm ever cautious when it comes to SCOTUS.

[Jazzhead]

In our legal order,  judges distinguish themselves from politicians by the oath they take to apply the law as it is, not to reshape the law as they wish it to be.

-  Judge Neil Gorsuch

We need to decide whether we really want a conservative jurist or not.    Do we want a Justice who will be an originalist, who will apply the law as written,  and will respect the limited role of an appellate court including the ancient tradition of stare decisis?    If we do,  then by all means get behind and support Judge Gorsuch.

If we want a judicial activist, willing to rip the scab off the body politic and overturn the settled order on such matters as abortion,  then Gorsuch,  I hope and believe, is the wrong man for the job.   

Geronl,  you don't want a conservative,  you want a crusader for fetuses.   That's fine - support such crusaders for Congress and your state legislature.   But overturning the rights and settled expectations of millions is not what a conservative jurist should be doing.   

[Luis Gonzalez]

-  Judge Neil Gorsuch

We need to decide whether we really want a conservative jurist or not.    Do we want a Justice who will be an originalist, who will apply the law as written,  and will respect the limited role of an appellate court including the ancient tradition of stare decisis?    If we do,  then by all means get behind and support Judge Gorsuch.

If we want a judicial activist, willing to rip the scab off the body politic and overturn the settled order on such matters as abortion,  then Gorsuch,  I hope and believe, is the wrong man for the job.   

Geronl,  you don't want a conservative,  you want a crusader for fetuses.   That's fine - support such crusaders for Congress and your state legislature.   But overturning the rights and settled expectations of millions is not what a conservative jurist should be doing.   

 

[Smokin Joe]

-  Judge Neil Gorsuch

We need to decide whether we really want a conservative jurist or not.    Do we want a Justice who will be an originalist, who will apply the law as written,  and will respect the limited role of an appellate court including the ancient tradition of stare decisis?    If we do,  then by all means get behind and support Judge Gorsuch.

If we want a judicial activist, willing to rip the scab off the body politic and overturn the settled order on such matters as abortion,  then Gorsuch,  I hope and believe, is the wrong man for the job.   

Geronl,  you don't want a conservative,  you want a crusader for fetuses.   That's fine - support such crusaders for Congress and your state legislature.   But overturning the rights and settled expectations of millions is not what a conservative jurist should be doing.   

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...

Rights and settled expectations? I expect without the Right to Life, all else is moot.

Decades of error will not change that, any more than decades of people trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment as a collective Right of the Militia rather than an Individual Right will alter the intent of that. There are ample ways to prevent conception without killing anyone, and ample ways to deal with the natural result of reproductive activities which do not involve the killing of the one person who has no choice in the matter.

[Jazzhead]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...

Rights and settled expectations? I expect without the Right to Life, all else is moot.

Decades of error will not change that, any more than decades of people trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment as a collective Right of the Militia rather than an Individual Right will alter the intent of that.

If that's your obsession, then lobby your elected representatives.  If Roe v. Wade was "error", the responsibility for changing it lies with the people and the Constitutional amendment process.   After 40 years, no conservative jurist worthy of the name will overturn the settled expectations of every woman of child-bearing age in America.   If you want a judicial activist,  then say so.   But don't ever utter the word "conservative" again.   

There are ample ways to prevent conception without killing anyone, and ample ways to deal with the natural result of reproductive activities which do not involve the killing of the one person who has no choice in the matter.

Of course there are.   And there are ample ways of reducing the need for abortion other than denying the legal rights of women.

[Mom MD]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...

Rights and settled expectations? I expect without the Right to Life, all else is moot.

Decades of error will not change that, any more than decades of people trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment as a collective Right of the Militia rather than an Individual Right will alter the intent of that. There are ample ways to prevent conception without killing anyone, and ample ways to deal with the natural result of reproductive activities which do not involve the killing of the one person who has no choice in the matter.

Dont waste your breath.  He is a baby killer in love with his own circular reasoning.  Dont feed the bears and maybe he will go away,

[Smokin Joe]

If that's your obsession, then lobby your elected representatives.  If Roe v. Wade was "error", the responsibility for changing it lies with the people and the Constitutional amendment process.   After 40 years, no conservative jurist worthy of the name will overturn the settled expectations of every woman of child-bearing age in America.   If you want a judicial activist,  then say so.   But don't ever utter the word "conservative" again.

In 1860, the reasonable expectation of all but those offended by the idea was that one would be able to own other people. That had a far longer tradition than the contrived "Right" to kill a baby in the womb. That took a Constitutional Amendment, too.
I'm all for overturning Miller, too, and getting rid of the NFA of '34.
As for what you call that, well, frankly, I don't give a damn. I have been called a lot of things for wanting what is right and just. I won't back down on my principles, and I vote for candidates who recognize that fundamental right over any who will not. I support jurists who won't overturn those fundamental rights.

[Jazzhead]

Dont waste your breath.  He is a baby killer in love with his own circular reasoning.  Dont feed the bears and maybe he will go away,

I oppose abortion just as you do.   If all you can muster is vile name-calling,  then I'll redouble my efforts.

Overturning Roe v. Wade is an obsession, not a viable strategy for saving unborn lives.  For that,  volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center.   

[txradioguy]

-  Judge Neil Gorsuch

We need to decide whether we really want a conservative jurist or not.    Do we want a Justice who will be an originalist, who will apply the law as written,  and will respect the limited role of an appellate court including the ancient tradition of stare decisis?    If we do,  then by all means get behind and support Judge Gorsuch.

If we want a judicial activist, willing to rip the scab off the body politic and overturn the settled order on such matters as abortion,  then Gorsuch,  I hope and believe, is the wrong man for the job.   

Geronl,  you don't want a conservative,  you want a crusader for fetuses.   That's fine - support such crusaders for Congress and your state legislature.   But overturning the rights and settled expectations of millions is not what a conservative jurist should be doing.   

If we do indeed get a judge who is an originalist...you are going to be very disappointed where two of your pet causes are concerned.

Originalists don't see phony "rights" where there are none.  They apply the Constitution as it was written.

And @geronl isn't' a "champion of fetuses"...he's an advocate for life...ALL life...which yet again you are proving that you aren't.

[txradioguy]

I oppose abortion just as you do. 

No you are a champion and a defender of it here....we have your own words to prove that.

Overturning Roe v. Wade is an obsession, not a viable strategy for saving unborn lives.  For that,  volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center.

Actually it's a course correction to the Constitution...putting it back on the footing it was originally...not where some Liberal justices took it.

[Oceander]

Thinking Roe v. Wade will be overturned in anyone's lifetime is a fools errand.  Miranda rights are as much an invention of a liberal court as is Roe v. Wade, and yet when the Court was given the opportunity to overturn Miranda it refused to do so, citing in part to stare decisis, the wealth of precedent that had built up around it, and settled expectations.  Roe v. Wade is as much a matter of those three factors.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You can polish the turd all you like... But to be in a position to become SCOTUS without an unequivocal position on LIFE hardly brings confidence.

As someone who has read his opinions and even appeared before him, you've got nothing to worry about.  You're looking at the specific issue of abortion as the only reliable indicator of where he would stand on that issue.  In fact, the core of his judicial philosophy -- everything he's been ever since he's been on the bench -- is the antithesis of Roe.  He will oppose Roe not because he's anti-abortion personally (though he probably is that as well) but because the legal reasoning behind Roe is absolutely indefensible for someone who sees the law as he does.  He has never once swayed from holding that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was meant when it was written, focusing on the text.  Roe simply cannot be defended on that ground.

And Roe doesn't even make it on stare decisis.  In the legal sense, "expectations" means that behaviors have changed based in reliance on law -- that there will be ancillary effects from repealing a law that didn't exist when the issue was first decided.  A good example of that are the decisions that have given so much power to regulatory agencies.  As wrong as they were, much of our legal and economic system is built on the foundation of the regulations and procedures implemented since those decisions.  If you tossed all of that out by saying "every single bit of existing federal rulemaking is unconstitutional", you'd have a whole lot of severe ancillary effects that would go beyond just eliminating the power of those agencies.  The best you could do is eliminate that authority moving forward.

In terms of abortion, that means that any decision would have delayed implementation so that it wouldn't affect women who already are pregnant.  And, of course, there is the even bigger issue that reversing Roe does not actually outlaw abortion.  It would simply return it to being a state issue, so stare decisis would be even weaker.

[txradioguy]

As someone who has read his opinions and even appeared before him, you've got nothing to worry about.  You're looking at the specific issue of abortion as the only reliable indicator of where he would stand on that issue.  In fact, the core of his judicial philosophy -- everything he's been ever since he's been on the bench -- is the antithesis of Roe.  He will oppose Roe not because he's anti-abortion personally (though he probably is that as well) but because the legal reasoning behind Roe is absolutely indefensible for someone who sees the law as he does.  He has never once swayed from holding that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was meant when it was written, focusing on the text.  Roe simply cannot be defended on that ground.

He clerked for Byron White...and correct me if I'm wrong...White was against Roe and it's sister decision Doe...stands to reason that White's judicial philosophy rubbed off on him a little.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Thinking Roe v. Wade will be overturned in anyone's lifetime is a fools errand.  Miranda rights are as much an invention of a liberal court as is Roe v. Wade, and yet when the Court was given the opportunity to overturn Miranda it refused to do so, citing in part to stare decisis, the wealth of precedent that had built up around it, and settled expectations.  Roe v. Wade is as much a matter of those three factors.

Exactly.

[Jazzhead]

Actually it's a course correction to the Constitution...putting it back on the footing it was originally...not where some Liberal justices took it.

No, at this late date it would be radical judicial activism.  That "course correction" would deny the rights of 150 million women.

Thinking Roe v. Wade will be overturned in anyone's lifetime is a fools errand.  Miranda rights are as much an invention of a liberal court as is Roe v. Wade, and yet when the Court was given the opportunity to overturn Miranda it refused to do so, citing in part to stare decisis, the wealth of precedent that had built up around it, and settled expectations.  Roe v. Wade is as much a matter of those three factors.

Well said, Oceander.    Those wishing to overturn Roe should do it the right way - the Constitutional amendment process.   

[txradioguy]

No, at this late date it would be radical judicial activism.

Only to radical Pro choicers like yourself.

That "course correction" would deny the rights of 150 million women.

Abortion isn't a "right".

 

Well said, Oceander.    Those wishing to overturn Roe should do it the right way - the Constitutional amendment process.   

So it was perfectly ok by you for the Court to create law and a mythical "right" where there was none...but the same nine black robes can't fix a lousy decision the same way?

[libertybele]

As someone who has read his opinions and even appeared before him, you've got nothing to worry about.  You're looking at the specific issue of abortion as the only reliable indicator of where he would stand on that issue.  In fact, the core of his judicial philosophy -- everything he's been ever since he's been on the bench -- is the antithesis of Roe.  He will oppose Roe not because he's anti-abortion personally (though he probably is that as well) but because the legal reasoning behind Roe is absolutely indefensible for someone who sees the law as he does.  He has never once swayed from holding that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was meant when it was written, focusing on the text.  Roe simply cannot be defended on that ground.

And Roe doesn't even make it on stare decisis.  In the legal sense, "expectations" means that behaviors have changed based in reliance on law -- that there will be ancillary effects from repealing a law that didn't exist when the issue was first decided.  A good example of that are the decisions that have given so much power to regulatory agencies.  As wrong as they were, much of our legal and economic system is built on the foundation of the regulations and procedures implemented since those decisions.  If you tossed all of that out by saying "every single bit of existing federal rulemaking is unconstitutional", you'd have a whole lot of severe ancillary effects that would go beyond just eliminating the power of those agencies.  The best you could do is eliminate that authority moving forward.

In terms of abortion, that means that any decision would have delayed implementation so that it wouldn't affect women who already are pregnant.  And, of course, there is the even bigger issue that reversing Roe does not actually outlaw abortion.  It would simply return it to being a state issue, so stare decisis would be even weaker.

Great post and I am all for a justice who believes that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was meant when it was written, focusing on the text. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

He clerked for Byron White...and correct me if I'm wrong...White was against Roe and it's sister decision Doe...stands to reason that White's judicial philosophy rubbed off on him a little.

White was a vote against Roe, although generally, it's not accurate to assume that a particular clerk shared his judge's position on all substantive issues.  That's particularly true for Justices who are occasional swing votes.

[txradioguy]

Thinking Roe v. Wade will be overturned in anyone's lifetime is a fools errand.  Miranda rights are as much an invention of a liberal court as is Roe v. Wade, and yet when the Court was given the opportunity to overturn Miranda it refused to do so, citing in part to stare decisis, the wealth of precedent that had built up around it, and settled expectations.  Roe v. Wade is as much a matter of those three factors.

There is judicial precedence for Miranda in the 5th Amendment as well as the 6th...I don't see in anything I've studied any Constitutional solid footing for Roe.

Seems to me Roe being reversed should be a no brainier.

[txradioguy]

White was a vote against Roe, although generally, it's not accurate to assume that a particular clerk shared his judge's position on all substantive issues.  That's particularly true for Justices who are occasional swing votes.

Ok that makes sense.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

No, at this late date it would be radical judicial activism.  That "course correction" would deny the rights of 150 million women.

That's not a stare decisis argument - that's an argument for recognizing it as a constitutional right in the first place.

Abortion is one of those issues where stare decisis is at its weakest.  Every non-pregnant woman starts with a clean slate, and would be in no better or worse a position that any woman would have been in prior to Roe.

It's far stronger for things like Obergefell, which creating long-term legal familial relations that could endure for decades, and around which a whole bunch of contractual and quasi-contractual rights are based.