I would have 'walked out the door' if Trump had asked me to overturn Roe v Wade says Gorsuch

Daily Mail ^ | March 21, 2017 | David Martosko

[Pinkbell]

Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's U.S. Supreme Court pick, said on Tuesday that he would have 'walked out the door' if the chief executive has asked him to over-turn Roe v Wade.

The federal judge mounted a defense of his independence as a judge as he was questioned by senators, and also suggested that the 44-year-old decision that legalized abortion, is a powerful legal precedent that would be difficult to overturn.

Gorsuch said in his confirmation hearing that the landmark women's rights case has been reaffirmed many times. 

'It is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court,' Gorsuch told the Senate Judiciary Committee, 'so a good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.' 

Trump said during his presidential campaign that he would appoint only anti-abortion judges to the high court, and predicted that the long-term result would be Roe's demise.

But Gorsuch insisted the case's status as a repeatedly defended decision 'adds to the determinacy of the law. What was once a hotly contested issue is no longer a hotly contested issue. We move forward.'

He was asked by South Carolina Republican senator Lindsey Graham how he would have reacted to a demand from Trump when the president was interviewing him to overturn Roe v Wade.

'I would have walked out the door,' he replied.

'It is not a judge's due. They should not do it a that end of Pennsylvania Avenue and they should not do it at this end, respectfully.'

[Pinkbell]

I agree 100% with what you said. I’m not sure either what to make of his responses. They could go either way.

[PapaBear3625]

'It is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court,' Gorsuch told the Senate Judiciary Committee, 'so a good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.'

A carefully-worded response, designed to not give the Democrats anything they can use to rally opposition against him, while at the same time not committing himself to accord Roe.v.Wade any "super" status as an non-overturnable precedent.

[Georgia Girl 2]

The reason roe v wade has not been overturned is that most Americans don’t really want it overturned. Gorsuch knows this. Until the thinking of the country changes roe v wade is safe.

[cpforlife.org]

Being pro-life and anti-abortion -- these particular answers are not very comforting.

His religious affiliation also seems to be cause for concern.

We have to be mindful that these hearings are so much theater and sadly he must play along. If he came out and clearly defined his position on abortion on either side he would have been dumped. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

We cannot ignore the fact that after he received his law degree, he purposely sought out Professor John Finnis at Oxford. Gorsuch has deeply steeped himself in natural law theory and Finnis was supposedly the most highly regarded teacher in the world at the time.

From wiki: In July 2006, Gorsuch’s book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, It was developed from his doctoral thesis.

I have not read it but understand that it is solidly pro-life.

Natural Law IS Pro-Life by default. That is a very important consideration in this situation.

All the Pro-Life groups I have seen are positive on this nomination.

We also cannot discount the vetting process. I doubt they would have passed him if they saw serious concerns in this area. This is of course placing significant trust in Trump. YMMV.

The bottom line is that we cannot know with certainty any nomination for our side. Only the libs enjoy that certainty.

At this point I remain cautiously optimistic. Cautiously.

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[BillyBoy]

>> I don't know WHY the Dems are so against him <<

It's very simple. They are mad that Obama's guy Merrick Garland didn't get the job, so they have vowed to oppose ANY "R" judge named to replace him.

Trump could have nominated an uber-RINO like Lisa Murkowski, and the Dems would have fought it tooth-and-nail.

When Bush appointed Gorsuch a decade ago, not a single Dem had any problems with him, even though they were filibustering Bush nominees left and right at the time. That's one of the reasons I don't trust Gorsuch now.

[1Old Pro]

That's one of the reasons I don't trust Gorsuch now.

The only reason I don't trust Gorsuch is that the GOP hasn't had a decent nominee in 30+ years with the notable exception of Clarence Thomas

[BillyBoy]

Eh, I would say Alito was a good pick and a proven, solid conservative.

IF Trump HAD "kept his campaign promise" to name a pro-life Scalia type judge (for example, nominating Thomas Rex Lee or Jennifer Elrod to SCOTUS), I would have gladly gotten behind the nominee.

But he didn't.

I'm amazed how many FReepers haven't learned from history and are eager to rubber stamp this guy after what we went through with John Roberts and Harriet Miers. Using their logic, Senate Republicans should have rallied behind Miers and given her a lifetime job since the President swore up an down that she was an "originalist"

[colorado tanker]

Gorsuch has been very consistent in not saying publicly how he might rule in a case that might come before SCOTUS. If he said he would overrule Roe he would be Borked.

[Architect of Avalon]

That is the chief concern, that he may treat Roe vs. Wade as a precedent that should not be overturned solely due to it having been around and entrenched for decades.

[Impy]

I was skeptical of your skepticism but I don’t know, I’m getting a bad vibe. I hope he’s just telling these ***k democrats what they want to hear.

[Impy]

BTW if it were me, I would not appoint someone unless they said they agreed with me that constitution is silent on abortion.

[sport]

Roe v. Wade is one reason that within 20 years at the most, probably closer than ten, that muslims will take over the United States of America. How will they accomplish that? By out breeding us and they raise like rats.American women are encouraged, either overtly or subvertly, to abort their babies in favor of their careers. Motherhood is reviled and despised by those in positions of authority. And as the Apostle Paul wrote: “Be not deceived, As one sows, he also reaps.” This applies also to Nations.

[BillyBoy]

>> I’m getting a bad vibe. I hope he’s just telling these ***k democrats what they want to hear. <<

The thing about Senate confirmation hearings is that its all theatrics. I think he is telling the Senate Dems what they want to hear (gay marriage is a "super precedent" blah blah blah, nod and kiss butt) but on the flip side, he is ALSO telling the Senate Republicans what they want to hear (I'm an "originalist", I don't believe in legislating from the bench, blah blah blah)

Confirmation hearings are grueling for any nominee and they will say WHATEVER it takes to get a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court.

Given the stakes involved (and the lousy track record of GOP presidents -- even Coolidge and Reagan BOTH gave us an awful SCOTUS judge), I am very hesitant to support ANY SCOTUS nominee unless I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt they will make conservative decisions. Out of the last seven Supreme Court nominations (Roberts, Miers, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagen, Garland, Gorsuch), I have backed only two of them -- Roberts and Alito -- and we all turned out to be wrong on Roberts (whose background was much MORE conservative than Gorsuch), so I find it bizarre how many conservatives still believe we should immediately rubber stamp whatever judge an "R" President gives us.

One thing history has taught me is that what a judge claims about their "judicial philosophy" means absolutely nothing. 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. I care only that the judge's personal background is clearly conservative and has been that way for years. There is ZERO excuse for replacing a staunchly conservative judge with a questionable judge when its a GOP president sending the nomination to a GOP Senate.

Apparently some conservatives feel the opposite way (don't give a crap about whether the judge's background is conservative or not, as long as the judge is marketed as a so-called "originalist"), and the result of that mindset has been this, over and over again:

[BillyBoy]

>> The NEXT pick will be the one the Dems will REALLY fight over. Let’s hope that by then that we have enough Republicans in the Senate, that it won’t matter. <<

If Scalia is replaced with a judge that votes like Sandra Day O'Connor, the NEXT pick won't matter. The Dems will have successfully moved the court the left for a generation and the pro-abortion wing of the court would be cemented in place by having a 2/3rds majority (with only Thomas, Alito, and Roberts opposing them). Trump could follow it up by replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Michele Bachmann and it wouldn't change the fact that the majority of SCOTUS would remain leftist on key issues. The damage would already be done.

I believe we've already seen a lot of terrible ruilings due to Rehnquist being replaced by the less conservative (but still much more conservative than Gorsuch) John Roberts. The Roberts court is closer to Warren Burger's tenure than it is the Bush-era Rehnquist court.