Skip to comments.Democrat Slams Neil Gorsuch: “He Believes the Intentional Taking of Human Life is Always Wrong”
Posted on 03/20/2017 2:22:21 PM PDT by NYer
During the hearing today in the Senate Judiciary Committee over Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, pro-abortion Democrat Dianne Feinstein slammed the potential High Court pick.
Feinstein drew on the issue of abortion for her criticism — saying that she probably will oppose Gorsuch because he believes “the intentional taking of a human life by private persons is always wrong.”
“President Trump repeatedly promised that his judicial nominees would be pro-life, and automatically overturn Roe v. Wade,” she said. “Judge Gorsuch has not had occasion to rule directly on a case involving Roe. However, his writings do raise questions. Specifically, he wrote that he believes there are no exceptions to the principle that ‘the intentional taking of a human life by private persons is always wrong.’ This language has been interpreted by both pro-life and pro-choice organizations to mean he would overturn Roe.”
“President Trump repeatedly promised to appoint someone in the mold of Justice Scalia and said that the nomination of Judge Gorsuch illustrates hes a man of his word,” said Feinstein. “The Supreme Court has the final say on whether a woman will continue to have control over her own body or whether decisions about her healthcare will be determined by politicians and the government.”
Feinstein then described a 21-week abortion as the kind of abortion at stake if Gorsuch’s nomination is confirmed.
Brian Burch of CatholicVote responded to the attacks.
“Already, Democratic Senators are on the attack. They understand the historic nature of this nomination. Left-wing groups have used the courts and reckless judicial decisions to impose their agenda on the people. But that could all end soon,” he said. “Judge Gorsuch has pledged to obey the Constitution and to respect the limited role of judges. Judges are not policy makers. Judges are not politicians. And when the Supreme Court restrains itself, the Left typically loses.”
“Today, Senators presented their opening statements. Tomorrow, the real fireworks begin with 30-minute Q & A exchanges between Judge Gorsuch and individual Senators on the Judiciary Committee — for 10 hours not counting breaks,” he added.
SIGN THE PETITION! Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch
President Donald Trump nominated the federal appeals Court Judge with strong support from pro-life organizations that point to his track record as supporting religious freedom for pro-life organizations refusing to be forced to pay for abortions. They also noted his opposition to assisted suicide and his support for a state fighting to defund Planned Parenthood abortion business.
The Planned Parenthood abortion business was also quick toblast Judge Gorsuch as well.
The abortion giant slammed Gorsuch for supporting Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor in their bids to not be forced to pay for abortion-causing drugs in their employee health care plans.
Gorsuch has also worked to undermine access to essential health care ruling that bosses should be able to deny women birth control coverage. His record shows a disturbing willingness to let ideology overrule his constitutional duty to uphold and respect clearly established precedent protecting our fundamental liberties, including Roe v. Wade and Whole Womans Health, Planned Parenthood said.
The 49-year-old Judge Gorsuch, if confirmed, would replace pro-life Justice Antonin Scalia who supporting overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing states to once again provide legal protection for unborn children.
Justice Gorsuch is currently a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which includes the districts of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, as well as the Eastern, Northern and Western districts of Oklahoma. He has served as a federal judge since August 2006 and was appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by the Senate.
The pro-life legal scholars who know him best say he is a strong originalist, believing that the Constitution should only be interpreted as the Founding Fathers intended. That would him squarely in the legal camp of Justice Scalia.
One of the biggest problems pro-life advocates have with the Supreme Court is that it invented a so-called right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. But Gorsuchs writings indicate he opposes that kind of thinking. In a 2005 National Review article, Gorsuch wrote that liberals rely on the courts too much to made social policy.
This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, theres little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programsreal-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produceare not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.
He said liberal activists rely on the judicial system as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.
On direct pro-life matters, Gorsuch sided with the state of Utah in its attempt to defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business.
Gorsuch sided with pro-life Utah Governor Gary Herberts effort to defund Planned Parenthood. After his decision, the 10th Circuit Court decided against re-hearing Planned Parenthood v. Gary Herbert, after the court previously ordered Utah to fund Planned Parenthood. Gorsch dissented in the case and wrote:
Respectfully, this case warrants rehearing. As it stands, the panel opinion leaves litigants in preliminary injunction disputes reason to worry that this court will sometimes deny deference to district court factual findings; relax the burden of proof by favoring attenuated causal claims our precedent disfavors; and invoke arguments for reversal untested by the parties, unsupported by the record, and inconsistent with principles of comity. Preliminary injunction disputes like this one recur regularly and ensuring certainty in the rules governing them, and demonstrating that we will apply those rules consistently to all matters that come before us, is of exceptional importance to the law, litigants, lower courts, and future panels alike. I respectfully dissent.
As National Review pro-life legal scholar Ed Whelan notes:
Id like to take note of his remarkable failure to acknowledge, much less credit Gorsuch for, Gorsuchs powerful dissent (see pp. 16-27 here) one month ago from the Tenth Circuits denial of rehearing en banc in Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert. As the faithful reader will recall from these posts of mine, in the aftermath of the Center for Medical Progresss release of videos depicting various Planned Parenthood affiliates ugly involvement in harvesting body parts, Utah governor Gary Herbert directed state agencies to cease acting as an intermediary for pass-through federal funds to Planned Parenthoods Utah affiliate. But after the district court denied Planned Parenthoods request for a preliminary injunction against Herberts directive, a divided panel, on very weak reasoning, ruled that Planned Parenthood was entitled to a preliminary injunction. Gorsuchs dissent dismantles the panel majoritys reasoning.
Would a Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch be inclined to overturn the decades-old decision fostering abortion on demand? His record suggests he is open to doing so.
As one pro-life legal scholar notes:
In the panel ruling in Games-Perez, Gorsuch did indeed regard himself as bound to abide by controlling circuit precedent, just as nearly every circuit judge not named Stephen Reinhardt also does. But Gorsuch didnt stop there. In a 20-page opinion, he urged the en banc Tenth Circuit to reconsider and overrule the wrong precedent.
Gorsuch also has made pro-life comments about abortion and strongly opposes assisted suicide. He has written a book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, which (as Princeton University Press puts it) builds a nuanced, novel, and powerful moral and legal argument against legalization [of assisted suicide and euthanasia], one based on a principle that, surprisingly, has largely been overlooked in the debatethe idea that human life is intrinsically valuable and that intentional killing is always wrong.
Meanwhile, as National Review reports, Gorsuch wrote a powerful dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in a case involving funding of Planned Parenthood. NR indicates Gorsuch has written human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.
Democrats have already promised to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee.
Sen. Jeff Merkle, a pro-abortion Oregon Democrat, said in an interview on Monday morning that he will filibuster any pick other than pro-abortion Judge Merrick garland who pro-abortion president Barack Obama named to replace pro-life Justice Antonin Scalia.
This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat, Merkley said in an interview. We will use every lever in our power to stop this.
Gorsuch is 49 years old. He and his wife, Louise, have two daughters and live in Boulder, Colorado.
So much for the notion of never using issues to decide fitness for SCOTUS.
Other than judicial execution, when is the intentional taking of a human life acceptable?
Self-defense exceptions are forced on the defender, they are not intentional acts.
I’ll bet Feinstein is one of those dizzy broads who is “fighting” for abortions because her mother couldn’t have one.
Yeah, it's called murder, ya' dumb a$$!
One of the smartest things I did at 18 years of age, was put as much distance between myself and the Democrats as I could by registering as a Republican.
How anyone but a mentally challenged person could stand to be registered as a Democrat or support one, is unfathomable to me.
DiFi, while not QUITE as sickening as Pelosi or Boxer, is running a close race now with them for the moral depravity prize of the year
hope she finally retires soon
He Believes the Intentional Taking of Human Life is Always Wrong
What a horrible human being!
She admits to what it is. I don't keep track of Feinstein's statements on abortion, but I would figure she would follow the usual line and say abortion is not taking a human life. But she admits to what it is. Stunning.
California voters are weird...Pelosi and Feinstein??????????
and MOONBEAM??????? good grief...
Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, not the State taking the life of a convicted criminal, usually a criminal animal in cases where the death penalty is actually applied.
I'm so damn tired of the fascist democrat double standards when it comes to courts, judges, and the application of the law. They don't even apply logic or reason, just their BS emotional arguments, irrational statements of their fantasies as if they're fact, and bare faced lies as if they're truth.
But then the anti gun hypocrite did buy a gun for protection when she felt her life was in danger.
If I recall didn’t DiFi intentionally leak Intel in retribution in protest, which was harmful to both national security & OPSEC?
Born Dianne Emiel Goldman
June 22, 1933 (age 83)
San Francisco, California, U.S.
Political party Democratic
Spouse(s) Jack Berman (19561959)
Bertram Feinstein (19621978)
Richard Blum (1980present)
Children 1 daughter
Demonicrat Dianne Feinstein is a lying murdering traitor who should be indicted, tried, convicted, sentenced and then publicly hanged for genocidal murder, crimes against humanity, and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Someone needs to ask Dianne, “when is the intentional taking of human life RIGHT?”.
Yes. Murder is always wrong.
She could always go retroactive and go dive off the nearest overpass. Make me AND her mom happy....
And Swinestein is ALWAYS wrong, no matter the issue. She falls right between Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee in beauty and intelligence in my opinion..
And so, the old argument continues...the argument between moral truth and moral relativism, between ethical surety and the mushy situational ethics of the left.
And, yet we don’t recognize liberalism for the mental disorder it actually is.
Just my response to the Headline ...
*** “Ill bet Feinstein is one of those dizzy broads who is fighting for abortions because her mother couldnt have one.” ***
I do believe that she is that dumb/stupid, can’t assign it to anything else.
So according to Senator Douchebag, it should be LEGAL to take human life? I tell ya with liberals there is absolutely NO cure for stupid..its embedded in them, forever
Sounds like she is admitting that a fetus IS a human life..she just doesn’t care if that baby gets slaughtered in the womb
I don’t think she meant to say it,but she flat out ADMITTED that the “little clump of cells” is indeed a human being! OMG!
I must disagree. There is certainly a difference between unintentionally hitting somebody dressed in black with your car at night and pulling your gun and dispatching a burglar who’s reaching for his.
I say the morality is clear and that we can’t split hairs on “the meaning of intentional” and divine a conclusion of whether Gorsuch would be a hard-liner on self-defense.
DiFi loves abortion. She wallows in its gore.
Between life in prison and death I would choose death.
Life is a way way worse punishment then death.
Between life in prison and death I would choose death.
Life is a way way worse punishment then death.
I look forward to the day when Feinstein burns in hell like she deserves. She’s got a lot to answer for and who she has to answer to won’t give a damn that she was a US Senator.
The left just loves their abortion. Nothing more addictive than power and what can be more powerful than the intentional killing of the most innocent among us?
You know, I’m starting to come around on this abortion thing. I really wish that Merkle and Feinstein’s mothers had gone the abortion route! How dare they not exercise their rights as women!!
**pro-abortion Democrat Dianne Feinstein slammed the potential High Court pick.**
I guess Feinstein has forgotten the Commandments given by God.
“Thou shalt not kill.”
Abortion is killing — always the baby and sometimes the mother, too.
He Believes the Intentional Taking of Human Life is Always Wrong
And Feinstein and the rest of the democrats don’t understand why their party is the smallest its been since the 1920’s.
Feinstain is a NASTY, MURDEROUS person.
All the Dems approved Gorsuch for Appeals Court. The GOP should take a page out of the Dems playbook and claim that as they had previously aproved him then the Senate should deem his appointment confirmed. Next...
War. Even in provoked war, your side will wind up killing people on the other side who are otherwise innocent, because it's necessary to win.
I am hopeful that Gorsuch is everything we conservatives and constitutionalists want him to be, but when I read the except below, I am a little bit concerned:
“...In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programsreal-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produceare not possible.”
As a Christian, I am not a fan of judging right/wrong by outcomes. The meaning of the 2A does not depend on crime statistics. The desirability of limited government does not depend on whether widespread health insurance is achieved. We should leave the outcome based approach in ethics to the secular humanists (ie. the modern liberals aka socialists).
Maybe I’m just missing the point? Either way, I am looking forward to hearing how Gorsuch responds to conservatives. Here’s hoping that he gets some really good original-intent questions to test his bona fides.
“Feinstein drew on the issue of abortion for her criticism saying that she probably will oppose Gorsuch because he believes the intentional taking of a human life by private persons is always wrong.”
Wow. She believes you should never kill anyone who doesn’t need it, then?
In an ideal world, Feinstein’s comments would probably disqualify her from holding elected office, not because she is a D, but because respect for the right to life, liberty, property are fundamental concepts in a republican form of government.
I am becoming very skeptical of Gore Suck. We take these criminal bastard lives every day. AND WE WILL CONTINUE to do so on these rapists and cop killers and murdered of the innocent. What we care about is innocent babies being slaughtered by the millions. Criminals are not human. Watch this guy— he may be a turn coat.
Your beerface is showing. He will be confirmed.
Watch that bastard. “Human life” is criminal life. The phrase is INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE!! Is he against capital punishment? Screw that!! ( I hate beer— never touch it!)
You can scream all you want. Choose the battles wisely.
When Kennedy quits your gonna see liberal heads explode.
This one is a given.
I’ll take him but I am not confident who he is with that BS!! Can you say SOUTER?
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.