Are you concerned that Neil Gorsuch belongs to a far-left church?

[Right_in_Virginia]

The Court probably should reflect the American people "to an extent";

How does this differ from the liberal view of the courts?  @TomSea

[DiogenesLamp]

NO

What concerns me is we have people bothered by what Christian denomination or church one attends.

Look up Religious affiliations of Presidents, and you will learn that Episcopalian's and Presbyterians make up the majority. Many "true conservatives" who attend these churches today do so because their family has always been members of that denomination, going back generations. Same can be said with Catholics.     

This is not your father's Oldsmobile. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Maybe he just likes the people there, and the worship style.  Did you ever consider that?

Is it normal for people to go to church because it has a special pizazz?  I was under the impression that imparting biblical wisdom had something to do with it.   


I've been to churches that had bands and orchestras,  and i've been to churches where instruments weren't permitted.   My thinking is that a church is not a building,  or music or style,  it's a place to go where people learn about God and are instructed in how he wants us to live our lives.   


I'm thinking if you don't get the foundational premises right,  the style doesn't much matter,  does it? 

[DCPatriot]

I'd feel a whole lot better if he attended Sunday services at the Heritage Foundation....or Liberty College.

[DiogenesLamp]

Far, far too much work to read and discuss his most relevant cases.

If I was a Senator,  voting on his nomination,  this would be a reasonable thing for me to do.  Since I am not,  it is insanity to think that just an ordinary voter should need to go through that much work to form an opinion.   

So just check out the church he attends. Political keyboard ranger rules.

It's actually a pretty good proxy for figuring things out,  if you know the proclivities of the various denominations in the various parts of the country.   Colorado already has been trending Liberal.   That he attends a Liberal church is indeed cause for misgivings. 

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm having  David Souter flash backs.

http://www.conservapedia.com/David_Souter

This.   

[DCPatriot]

This.

Yeah...he's probably a better example of my worst fear.

Even with Kennedy sitting on the Court today, it's 4-4 in terms of historical ruling habits of the Justices.

It IS imperative that Scalia's replacement be a Scalia clone.   Not a '2nd cousin on my mother's Catholic-side', etc..

I even tried to give Gorsuch the benefit of a doubt...thinking the liberal, emotional, guilt ridden messages serve as his counter-weight to the words written into the actual existing law in question.

But, I'd rather Trump fire him, and give it to Ted Cruz.   

[Smokin Joe]

It's actually a pretty good proxy for figuring things out,  if you know the proclivities of the various denominations in the various parts of the country.   Colorado already has been trending Liberal.   That he attends a Liberal church is indeed cause for misgivings.

Boulder has been a hotbed of Liberalism in Colorado, anyway.

Maybe this could give some insighthttp://www.fwlaw.com/news/149-adverse-possession-claims-colorado, although Gorsuch was not involved in the case.

However, it might behoove us, despite our concerns, to do some digging here http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-neil-gorsuch/, where there are links to actual cases.

[DCPatriot]

Boulder has been a hotbed of Liberalism in Colorado, anyway.

Maybe this could give some insighthttp://www.fwlaw.com/news/149-adverse-possession-claims-colorado, although Gorsuch was not involved in the case.

However, it might behoove us, despite our concerns, to do some digging here http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-neil-gorsuch/, where there are links to actual cases.

At the very least, look at each and every one of his cases/opinions under a microscope.     

He's 49.  That was supposed to be a Conservative's wet dream.  If he's a Souter, it's a 30 year nightmare.

[EasyAce]

The Court probably should reflect the American people "to an extent" . . .

I don't think the Court and the judicial branch were designed that way nor intended to become that way, even accepting
the point that it's not incumbent upon those charged with making the nominations to choose only alumni of prestigious
schools. I hardly need to say the most honoured graduate of an Ivy League university can yet prove to be the least
competent attorney or jurist, even as the most modest graduate of a modest college can yet prove to be the most
competent attorney or deepest-thinking jurist.

That said, the current discussion also has me thinking about a particular clause in the Constitution: Article VI, Section 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive
and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this
Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
It seems to me that if the government can be barred legally from requiring or asking any kind of religious test for holding
office (even that of a Supreme Court justice), it's not terribly wise for us to do likewise. It's one thing to feel more comfortable
with a known religious individual attaining office, but it's something else entirely to demand it. Or to suggest that there
ought to be some sort of prescribed religious representation in one or another government body or branch.

I'd rather consider Judge Gorsuch by way of his judicial career and record than by way of his chosen church.

[Bigun]

I don't think the Court and the judicial branch were designed that way nor intended to become that way, even accepting
the point that it's not incumbent upon those charged with making the nominations to choose only alumni of prestigious
schools. I hardly need to say the most honoured graduate of an Ivy League university can yet prove to be the least
competent attorney or jurist, even as the most modest graduate of a modest college can yet prove to be the most
competent attorney or deepest-thinking jurist.

That said, the current discussion also has me thinking about a particular clause in the Constitution: Article VI, Section 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive
and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this
Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
It seems to me that if the government can be barred legally from requiring or asking any kind of religious test for holding
office (even that of a Supreme Court justice), it's not terribly wise for us to do likewise. It's one thing to feel more comfortable
with a known religious individual attaining office, but it's something else entirely to demand it. Or to suggest that there
ought to be some sort of prescribed religious representation in one or another government body or branch.

I'd rather consider Judge Gorsuch by way of his judicial career and record than by way of his chosen church.

I'm wit you!   

[240B]

How much concern was there for Obama and so called Reverend Wright?
The guy who attended the very most radical anti-American church in the entire country was elected to be POTUS, a Commander in chief of all U.S. military forces worldwide.


Talk about a religious test. Give me a break with this nonsense already.

[DCPatriot]

How much concern was there for Obama and so called Reverend Wright?
The guy who attended the very most radical anti-American church in the entire country was elected to be POTUS, a Commander in chief of all U.S. military forces worldwide.


Talk about a religious test. Give me a break with this nonsense already.

We're not speaking about moral equivalency here.  Or level...or degree.  In fact, what does the fact he was CIC have to do with the conversation at all?

In fact, your example further enhances my argument....for if they had vetted Barack Obama and Wright's Church, we might have avoided the whole thing.

It provided all the evidence of what was coming to pass for America.

[EC]

I think that the sort of worship services one attends reflect their attitudes. If you allow your worship to be polluted by ideas which we, as conservatives, find abhorrent, then chances are your thinking will be somewhat aligned with those ideas.
Otherwise, I wouldn't tolerate those ideas and would find another church to attend. I have walked out of sermons I didn't agree with. My twice great grandfather reminded a Catholic Priest of the codicil in the deed for the land the church sat upon that when the day came that the teachings of the Church were no longer reflected in the services, the land reverted to the family, after standing up in the middle of a Homily and respectfully disagreeing with the priest.
They took the discussion to the sacristy after the service.
 
It becomes a question of what principles you are willing to stand by.

We looked at Obama in Jeremiah Wright's church, and saw then he would embrace the same identity politics that were preached from the pulpit. Fergusson and Baltimore and more were encouraged by the administration's lack of interference, evidence Obama agreed with the spew from that pulpit.

Now, suddenly, no one seems willing to apply the same litmus test to a SCOTUS nominee because "our guy" made the nomination. Nonsense.

We aren't supposed to judge another's soul (that's above our pay grade), but at the same time we are supposed to use some discernment in who we would give authority, over our worship and over our lives, just as we use some discretion in who we hang out with, partly because that reflects not just on us, but on the Deity we profess to follow.

@Smokin Joe

To an extent I agree with you - but I am asking. Find me two rulings (verifiable history of actions/beliefs) that are influenced to a large extent by his church. I'm asking for two, because anyone can make one mistake.

I've not gone through all of them, but I'm not seeing ANY yet that are not grounded solely in a textualist approach to the constitution.

[Emjay]

Even though my Episcopal Church was liberal, no one could have told it by the services.  We had great music (given the limitations of the Episcopal hymnal), a beautiful, traditional service and good sermons with no political slant or content.

Only if one went to other services, like Bible classes, could one discern the liberal bent.

People are being a little nuts and paranoid to criticize this man about this issue.

[INVAR]

You don't deserve anything better.  Your "argument" against Gorsuch is vapid.

Yeah, and they said the same thing about the concerns we levied about Obama's 20 year history attending Jeremiah Wright's "church".

That too was dismissed and ridiculed as having no bearing on how Obama would govern.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Even though my Episcopal Church was liberal, no one could have told it by the services.  We had great music (given the limitations of the Episcopal hymnal), a beautiful, traditional service and good sermons with no political slant or content.

Only if one went to other services, like Bible classes, could one discern the liberal bent.

People are being a little nuts and paranoid to criticize this man about this issue.

 

[roamer_1]

Bingo.

I'm in the same Episcopal diocese and have met Rev. Springer, and some of the people from St. John's.  She's all right, and they're all right, even if their politics aren't to my liking.

For a person like Gorsuch to live in harmony in a church like St. John's ... or for people like me to do so in my own church ... is a model for how the world ought to be.

I couldn't disagree more. To sacrifice truth on the altar of community is an abhorrence to me, and it is particularly the reason my family and myself fled from the Presbyterian USA denomination...

[roamer_1]

I'm simply addressing the meme bouncing around out there that someone's church affiliation and their mission statement in their community is not going to affect the thinking and rulings from the nominee that attends there by choice.

One who would suffer the Word of God to be abused can hardly be trusted with the mere Constitution of the United States.

[TomSea]

...I asked my research assistant to examine every case in which Gorsuch sat with a mix of Republican- and Democratic-appointed judges, and we reached divided conclusions. In the past five years, in almost one-third of those cases, Gorsuch voted with his liberal colleagues, not with the conservatives. That is the record of a moderate, fair-minded, nonpartisan jurist.

This is not just my opinion. Liberal and progressive law professors all over the country, not caught up in the politics of the day, have come to the same conclusion. No one agrees with all of Judge Gorsuch’s opinions. I certainly don’t. But they are without exception thoughtful, moderate, and independent.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/318830-i-served-with-judge-gorsuch-this-is-my-reflection-on-his

Not exactly what one wants to read, eh @DCPatriot

If this were a Conservative Evangelical up for nomination,  you'd feel rather confident he would be a conservative vote.

I don't like that underlined part at all.

So, he might do the right thing, 66% of the time?

[TomSea]

One who would suffer the Word of God to be abused can hardly be trusted with the mere Constitution of the United States.

 

[EasyAce]

Also from the original article:

The best description of Gorsuch is that he is a constitutionalist rather than a partisan. In the years ahead of us, when
a set of issues will arise that the country has never seen before, this is exactly the kind of justice Americans of all political stripes
should hope for.

Isolating a pertinent point: there will be, and always are, times when construing the Constitution reasonably will mean
that a law might be struck down as unconstitutional no matter how popular the law proves to be with one or another group of
people, even as a law might be upheld as constitutional no matter how unpopular it proves to be with one or another group
of people. Reasonable construction of the Constitution will not always uphold laws one likes or strike down laws one dislikes.

I would submit that bad law that is also unconstitutional is defined fairly as law that allows or mandates excessive government
overreach in violation of the Constitution's limits, to say nothing of obstructing or abrogating individual rights and economic and
political freedom. The record as it exists seems to indicate mostly that Gorsuch suffers neither constitutional fools nor government
overreach gladly, and that's well worth having on the Supreme Court.

[roamer_1]

I've not gone through all of them, but I'm not seeing ANY yet that are not grounded solely in a textualist approach to the constitution.

I can assure you that textual criticism is encumbered every bit as much as any other interpretive means, by the prism one sees the text through...

[Jazzhead]

Yeah...he's probably a better example of my worst fear.

Even with Kennedy sitting on the Court today, it's 4-4 in terms of historical ruling habits of the Justices.

It IS imperative that Scalia's replacement be a Scalia clone.   Not a '2nd cousin on my mother's Catholic-side', etc..

I even tried to give Gorsuch the benefit of a doubt...thinking the liberal, emotional, guilt ridden messages serve as his counter-weight to the words written into the actual existing law in question.

But, I'd rather Trump fire him, and give it to Ted Cruz.   

Nominating Judge Gorsuch is the single best thing that Trump has done as President.  He's a peach, folks.   He was into movement conservatism in college,  and he's been a serious jurist with a sound philosophy of judging .   Is he an activist on your pet issue - abortion, guns, whatever?    I don't know,  and I don't care.   Gorsuch makes a solid pillar of the SCOTUS for the next 30 years.  If conservatives can't unite on this one,  it bodes ill for the new Administration.   

[roamer_1]

Nominating Judge Gorsuch is the single best thing that Trump has done as President.  He's a peach, folks.   He was into movement conservatism in college,  and he's been a serious jurist with a sound philosophy of judging .   Is he an activist on your pet issue - abortion, guns, whatever?    I don't know,  and I don't care.   Gorsuch makes a solid pillar of the SCOTUS for the next 30 years.  If conservatives can't unite on this one,  it bodes ill for the new Administration.   

Plaid - It's the new black.