Posted on 03/01/2017 4:11:12 PM PST by NKP_Vet
February 23, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Neil Gorsuch has been received by most conservative leaders as an outstanding nominee to fill the vacant position of Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. His bona fides is attested to by such authorities as the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, as well as numerous luminaries of originalist jurisprudential thought.
However, conservative endorsements do not automatically imply a pro-life and pro-family worldview, and questions have been raised about Gorsuch’s views on sexual morality as well as the binding nature of bad judicial precedents. The question therefore remains for defenders of the right to life and family: what are we to expect of Gorsuch with regard to these crucial questions? Would Gorsuch’s tenure on the court be a beneficial one for life and family, and if so, how much?
Gorsuch’s ideological background and legal career
Neil McGill Gorsuch, 49, is the son of two career attorneys, and spent much of his teen years in Washington, D.C. while his mother served under Ronald Reagan as the first woman to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Gorsuch’s family was staunchly Republican and militantly conservative, at least on issues regarding fiscal restraint and economic freedom. The perspective held by Gorsuch’s parents on social issues is unclear.
After graduating from the elite Jesuit Georgetown Preparatory School in Washington, D.C., Gorsuch went on to major in political science at Columbia, where he graduated cum laude in only three years and was elected to the elite Phi Beta Kappa honor society. Both at Georgetown Prep and Columbia, which were dominated by liberal students and faculty, Gorsuch established himself as a cautious academic with conservative tendencies who enjoyed entering into the fray of discussion without offending his opponents or taking positions that might be perceived as extreme.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Thanks to Scalia flag burning is free speech. Displaying the Stars and Bars is hate speech.
How can we not be concerned about the long term future rulings of a Judge?
Reagan put in one that wasn’t the best as did Bush. I think all wanted conservative justices and thought they were putting one in.
Roberts is a good example.
Yeah, we should be worried despite what anyone thinks they know about justices. We can see a liberal, but not Rinos.
Easy enough to change churches though isn't it?
It’s pretty clear from the article that the Bible doesn’t play a big part of Gorsuch’s life. No one who calls themselves a Christian could condone so-called same-sex “marriage.” It spits in the face of God’s plan and common sense.
I hate to say this (really), but I have never met a cradle Catholic who converted to the apostate and satanic Episcopal “Church” who was not a sexual radical - pro-gay, and pro-abortion.
The head of the Episcopal “Divinity” School, now mercifully going out of business, recently declared abortion to be a “sacrament”.
I know of cradle Episcopalians who are followers of Christ, bearing the cross of the destruction of their families historical church while remaining there out of familiarity, or a misconceived loyalty.
For a cradle Catholic, who converted after the age of reason, this cannot apply.
He should not be confirmed, on this ground alone.
Yeah, I'm sure the RATs and RINOS are going to be all over this...take it to the bank. < /sarc>
Actually, thanks to Scalia freedom of speech is alive and well. While I cannot burn your flag, and you cannot burn my flag, we can each burn the flag we do own as long as it does not endanger the public by doing so.
While you & I find the act reprehensible is does fall under the freedom of speech protected by the 1st amendment.
Perhaps you can help direct me to the case you are referring to that Scalia said that the confederate flag was hate speech, because I am drawing a blank on that one to be honest.
If he is a constitutionalist, it doesn’t matter what his personal beliefs are.
Ping
Let Gorsuch call my bluff. The time for Souters and Kennedys and Robertseseses are over.
Boulder has been a Peoples’Republic since the 60s. I have lived in a similar PR for 40 years. The city has moved way to the Left over that time while I have moved Right. The history of GOP SCOTUS appointments is full of poor choices. It’s a total crapshoot.
Thanks. Tomorrow, I’ll have to fight my way to my desktop to see if I can get to the whole paper.
I don't know that they have a decision but it is hate speech never the less and if you do it and get the crap beat out of you no one will charge the ones doing the beating.
As far as the Flag burning decision it stinks, so we will never agree on that. He could just as easily seen it as incitement to riot and ended it.
Agreed. Every Justice is a crap shoot I guess and the GOP record has been dismal.
So you are admitting that Scalia had nothing to do with making the Confederate flag a symbol of hate. I will concede that the Confederate flag appears to not be afforded the same constitutional protections as is flag burning, and that needs to be tried in the court system as unconstitutional due to freedom of speech as afforded in the constitution.
That case needs to be pushed. If they refuse to accept that it affords the same constitutional rights under freedom of speech as is granted to flag burning, then we need to readdress the flag burning issue again.
The courts must be consistent. If a flag and what you do with it is a right protected by free speech (as long as it is your flag - and that was a key part of the ruling I might add - which means legally they could require the person burning it to prove that it is their flag and if they cannot then they can be arrested on the spot), then so is your personal Confederate flag.
If someone assaults you because of your Confederate flag and law enforcement refuses to arrest the person or people involved, and they are know, then you sue the law enforcement agency that refuses to act. Because assault is a separate issue from freedom of speech.
The flag bearer himself is more likely to get arrested and you know it. He after all incited them to riot.
Constitutional rights currently are variable and you know it. Try going to a Muslim bakery and force them to service a queer marriage. See if they get fined $100,000.00+ and have their business destroyed if they refuse.
There are patriots in Oregon on trial for occupying a government station in protest, compare that with the illegal occupation of Wall Street or Ferguson, or the Pipeline camps.
I didn't admit there was no decision on the Confederate Flag, I said I didn't know if it had been adjudicated, I also said it didn't matter because people who have tried it didn't fare well, just as if the law existed. If you have the money to defend yourself you can help the local economy and likely still lose whether such a law exists or not. Such is the state of Political correctness disease in our country.
As far as Christian bakers go, they are specifically being targeted and sued by the LBGT community. If they targeted Muslim bakers then we could test your theories, but they don't because the liberal cause is against Christianity. Foolishly so I might add as well. Why? Because Muslims will gain control and then they will exact what they want upon that community and there will be nothing there to protect them, because the constitution will have been shredded by then and replaced with sharia law. Liberal, or more accurately leftists, are not really smart enough to see that far down the road. In other words they are useful idiots, and nothing more.
I never said the flag bearer wouldn't be arrested, I said it needs to be tested, because the courts have to be consistent on the free speech argument, but no one has challenged the courts.
I am not going to argue every single case still pending, like the Oregon case, because I am not a lawyer. In addition they made some very grievous errors. Not saying they were wrong in what they were trying to do, they just made some tactical errors that allowed the situation to get out of control.
But I can tell you that laws are broken by those who are supposed to uphold the laws and the constitution, and that liberals will always clog the courts many times over until they get the judges that will side with them on issues.
The only way to fight back is to use their tactics against them first, and keep perpetuating the issue many times over until we become victorious.
You seem to think that this war being fought against us is by real patriots. After all they claim that they are, but in reality they are destroyers in hopes of enriching themselves, period.
The really strange part in all of this is that we are both on the same side, yet you keep fighting me. I am not the enemy. I am merely stating realities.
This is not a fight that will be easily won, and each year we lose ground because the left liberals own the education system and are dumbing down the American youth who are not wise enough to realize that the hatred they have for this country is misplaced, and the socialism and social justice fight is just a ploy to make them their slaves, sooner rather than later.
No I didn't you assumed I did. They are birds of a feather but with very different treatment nut Scalia's speech interpretation laid the foundation for it. There is no discussion here for un on this issue. I think Scalia made a terrible decision you don't there is no where to go with that discussion.
As far as the rest of your post, I find nothing to quarrel about maybe some discussion but nothing I would take to the mat.
I fear Trump is getting some really bad advice and not from loyal friends.
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.