Posted on 03/20/2017 2:56:02 PM PDT by TBP
Scores of terrible judges at all levels of judicial appointments were marketed as "originalists" and "strict constructists", including the judges who gave us Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, and upheld Obamacare.
Richard Nixon made a campaign pledge that he would work to undo the judicial activism of the Earl Warren court and swore up and down that he would ONLY appoint "strict constructionists" to the bench. What's more, I believe he sincerely tried to do so. Some of his more reliable nominees were blocked by a Dem controlled Senate, and there was good evidence at the time that Warren Burger and Harry Blackmun wouldn't legislate from the bench, based on their past rulings. Blackmun just "grew" in office thanks to being on SCOTUS for decades and not being a firm conservative. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If you claim you opposed Roberts, I would seriously doubt that assertion, since I was on FR at the time and the ONLY conservative I remember who strongly opposed the nomination was Ann Coulter (who turned out to be right) and everyone else was very pleased with the pick and ridiculed Coulter for casting doubts on the nomination. And yes, Roberts was certainly marketed as an "originalist", and we all believed it. We were wrong. Roberts had a track record, he had authored 49 opinions from the bench on the D.C. circuit, and there was zero evidence he would vote to uphold Obamacare. The whole country was shocked when he did.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Bottom line: President Trump promised to appoint ONLY pro-life judges. He has not done so.
There is no evidence that Gorsuch is against abortion or will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade (and Gorsuch even says he won't). If you want to believe he will magically vote the way you want on issues like abortion and gay marriage because he says he is an "originalist", even though that strategy has never worked before, that's your business.
I don’t think Nixon tried. Nixon was a progressive.
As I said, I was proud to vhe opposed O’Connor, Souter, and Roberts. That will show up in posts at the time.
I knew Roberts was no originalist. He had nothing to show that he was. He was another stealth nominee. Those don’t work out. (Bush should have appointed Luttig.)
I remember the Burger and Blackmun fights, and I remember my family expressing doubt about Blackmun. He was every bit the disaster that my family thought he’d be.
I remember the Burger and Blackmun fights, and I remember my family expressing doubt about Blackmun. He was every bit the disaster that my family thought he’d be.
Roberts: Clerked for Rehnquist, served in the Reagan administration, devout traditional Catholic, wife proud member of Feminists for Life, says he sees no constitutional precedent for gay marriage = was not Conservative enough
Gorsuch: Clerked for Kennedy, left Catholic Church and joined ultra-liberal Episcopolian congregation with Trump-hating female "priestess" as pastor (when there's more conservative Episcopilian church a few blocks away, BTW), says unborn babies are "nonviable fetuses", illegal aliens are "undocumented migrants", men who feel they are women ARE women, and gay marriage is a super duper precedent = excellent Conservative pick
If you SINCERELY believe that, you must be smoking some pretty good stuff.
End of discussion.
And Trump should have appointed Jennifer Elrod, Charles Canady, Edith Jones, or Thomas Rex Lee. THOSE are PROVEN pro-life conservative judges "in the mold of Scalia". THOSE types of appointments would have "kept his campaign promise"
Scalia is the kind of guy who drove 3 hours out of his way to attend a traditional Latin Mass because he thought the current Catholic liturgy was too liberal. He would be utterly appalled that a man with Gorsuch's background is replacing him.
Roberts was not a genuine originalist, and his ruling on 0bamacare vindicates those of us who opposed him. (I’ll admit that Ann Coulter influenced my thinking on the matter.)
He says that that's what the state of the law is; he didn't say it's his belief or how he'd rule. Sadly, he's correct -- that is the current state of the law. But like Dred Scott and Plessy, Roe will eventually be overturned.
Something like that.
Roberts, as many of us suspected, understands neither the commerce clause nor the taxing power.
Gorsuch: Clerked for Kennedy
He also clerked for Reagan-appointed Judge David Sentelle. (Oddly, Sentelle was preceded by Douglas Ginsburg, a failed Reagan Supreme Court nominee, and his seat is now occupied by someone named Merrick GArland.)
Do you like Justice Alito? He applied for a clerkship with Whizzer White.
says unborn babies are "nonviable fetuses"
Not his personal view, but teh curent state of jurisprudence in America.
gay marriage is a super duper precedent
What he said is "settled law", and that was only in response to a question from a Dhimmicrap senator. At one time, Dred Scott was settled law. At one time, Plessy v. Ferguson was settled law. They they weren't.
Judge Gorsuch is the son of a Reagan administration official. He has a judicial record that is conservative and constitutionalist, within the boundaries set by the fact that he is a lower court judge.
He'll be a better justice than Roberts could ever be.
Super precedent? Democrats just make this shit up as they go along, so let's turn the table on them:
The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Second Amendment and the fundamental right as guaranteed by our Constitution for every citizen to bear arms against dozens of lawsuits and unConstitutional laws brought by, and passed by Democrats fpr which the USSC has declared same laws unConstitutional.
If that doesn't constitute super-precedent, I don't know what does.
: FU Diane Feinswine!
My experience on FR has taught me whenever someone vouches for so-and-so questionable nominee and swears up and down that the person will be Mr. Conservative and we will love him, that FReeper is nowhere to be seen when its a year later and the rest of us are stuck with their lousy record.
You should have seen all the "I've known him PERSONALLY for years and Mel Martinez is an anti-amnesty Tea Party savior and anyone who dares doubt that FACT is just flat out racist against latinos" crowd who demonized me for months and then convinently went AWOL on FreeRepublic when Martinez broke his "no amnesty" campaign pledge.
The reverse is also true, by the way. Scores of FReepers demonized Pat Roberts during the primary campaign and swore up and down that he would morph into Arlen Specter after being re-elected even though his record was 99% conservative. I told them I'd hold them to that and I did, but now that he's remained rock solid on conservative principles, they're nowhere to be found. Not one is willing to man up, admit they were wrong, and apologize for smearing this excellent Senator as a RINO.
So I'd bookmark this one to say "I told you so" in 2018, but I know you'll run and hide if you have to held accountable for all this Gorsuch=Scalia 2.0 propaganda.
Quite the opposite. When he turns out to be an excellent Supreme Court justice, you'll be nowhere to be found on the subject and you'll be attacking him anyway, and attacking those of us who supported 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.