The mere fact that he felt obliged to speak out at all at a time when he was being vetted and heading for confirmation hearings is troublesome.
I'm afraid we're going to see another Conservative Dream turn into a liberal leaning Nightmare.
It has already happened too many times in the past.
I’m a bit concerned about him myself.
However, when it comes to social issues, very few of those belong in the federal court system. Certainly not in the Supreme Court. Most of the social issue cases that make it to SCOTUS have no business being there. They involve matters that the Constitution gave to the states.
Marriage laws are a good example. The individual states regulate marriage which is why you have a lack of uniformity in age of consent, blood tests, waiting periods, etc. Fine. All proper. People of the state can pressure their legislature to change it whenever they want.
If the issue becomes of national interest, a Constitutional amendment will be required.
So if Gorsuch is a true Constitutionalist, he’ll be voting to kick social issue cases back down to the state trial courts.
What, according to Richard Blumenthal?
Trump should let him know if the first bad ruling he makes, he meets with an unfortunate accident. He should have picked Mike Lee.
I just don’t see how a person can live in the republic of Boulder Colorado and attend the church he and his wife attends and still be a staunch conservative. I have my doubts!
“He should keep on looking.”
First, if he even said what they said..he had no other answer...the fault, if there is any to lay, goes on Trump for putting him in that position. I’m not saying that Trump did it on purpose, just the way things worked out.
Second, there is no way that Trump can or would drop him. The guy checked all the boxes and has the backing of Senators Cruz and Lee. You would be asking Trump to commit political suicide!
They are always a gamble, especially as far as conservative judges go. This guy is no different, though he does sound like he has a lot of Souter in him, which is troubling. On the flip side, however, there is obviously reasons for liberals not wanting to confirm him. One thing I am certain about is that he is not likely to be another Scalia. That man will be hard, if not outright impossible, to replace.
Agreed.
But what about Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch? He belongs to a far-left church that embraces marriage redefinition, gun control, and the theory of man-caused global warming.
He belongs to St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colo., the Episcopal diocese of Colorado confirmed on Wednesday. Church bulletins show that the judge has been an usher three times in recent months. His wife Louise frequently leads the intercessory prayer and reads the weekly Scripture at Sunday services, and his daughters assist in ceremonial duties during church services as acolytes.
The first word that St. John’s uses to describe itself on its website and Facebook page is “inclusive,” and the church is led by a female rector. On its website, the church encourages members to write letters to Congress asking for actions addressing climate change.
That’s not all. Its website also calls for members to lobby their congressmen for more gun control.
And more:
Rev. Susan Springer has said she is pro-gay marriage and offers blessings to same-sex couples
The church’s Rev. Ted Howard also signed a letter slamming the ‘disrespectful rhetoric’ directed at Islam as Trump floated a ban on Muslim immigrants[.] ...
Church authorities also appear to be strongly in favor of environmental initiatives and added solar panels to the roof because of ‘climate crisis[.]’
As an Episcopalian, it’s not as though Gorsuch didn’t have other choices:
A 2004 article in the journal Anglican and Episcopal History examined the two Episcopal churches in Boulder. At the time, the writer described St. John’s as the older and more traditional church building, but the more theologically and politically liberal of the two. The churches diverged on the subject of homosexuality, the article said: the other church, St. Aidan’s, underlined the word “traditional” on its website while St. John’s added the words “AIDS-aware” to indicate its welcome to LGBT people.
It’s a gamble that has to be made.
There’s no place to get jurists subscribing to originalist legal theory. Law schools relegate it to history and philosophy, not current practice. Any originalist is self-taught and had better have been pretty quiet about it.
I’d prefer no one with an Ivy League background be considered, but I don’t get to decide.
I hope he is not a legal contortionist as Roberts proved to be. The 0bamacare problems exist today because of his dereliction.
The trained philosophers on FR will be concerned about the differences between Finnis/ Grisez version of the Natural Law and that of Aquinas. Finnis/G’s thoughts on the matter allows Gorsuch to disappoint eventually in his legal decisions.
It will not be the Natural Law of the founding documents which diluted Aquinas somewahat, but which are more aligned to Aquinas than are Finnis/G which will influence Gorsuch.
All IMHO.
Bork was a legal positivist, too, at the time he was being considered for the SC. He might have developed more interest in Thomistic natural-law philosophy as he became a Catholic after that. So Gorsuch may be no more of a wild card than Bork would have been--if he hadn't been Star Chambered by the Chappaquiddick River Pilot.
A sincere originalist could be described as someone who insists on making Congress do its job of writing the laws, and unwilling to pull America's chestnuts out of the fire (or throw them into the fire) by legislating from the bench. Gorsuch could simply be that someone.
I frankly can't imagine sharing his comfort level about sodomy and quasi-legal enshrinements of it. But men who are very willful, as he shows signs of being, have been known to carry on for decades, driving people crazy who expected them to rule in favor of their emotions instead of insisting on a text-supported approach that has been their only comfortable position in a contradictory world.
They essentially picked the list of justice candidates, not sure why it had Diane Sykes and this guy. Are there no reliable candidates?
Total B.S. article. This is like one of those articles that said Trump was not conservative during the election of 2016. It’s total malarkey!
Gorsuch is to Right of Scalia and Thomas. Gorsuch actually worked under Scalia too at the SCOTUS.
This is an attempt to scuttle Gorsuch from the right. Gorsuch is a HUGE 2nd Amendment, Constitutional and Bill of Rights Judge. This article is complete B.S.
{Commenting without having read the article}
Gorsuch is guaranteed to be head and shoulders better than anyone Illary would have nominated.
There have been several justices that appeared to be ideal only to turn out bad - Earl Warren is the prime example. A Justice is a lot like a mutual fund with the disclaimer that past performance is no guarantee of future success. Once he is seated, he’s set for life and under no control.
If he is a constitutionalist, it doesn’t matter what his personal beliefs are.