Posted on 03/21/2017 8:43:27 PM PDT by 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.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
If it were me, he would have walked out the door because I would have asked. It's interesting to see the take on this.
'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.'
Yes, but a terrible one that has denied the right to life to nearly 60 million unborn babies.
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.'
How can he possibly say that it's "no longer a hotly contested issue?" It's probably the most contested issue decided by the court in this country. People win and lose elections on this issue.
It's interesting to see this writer's take and the take of Life News which saw it differently:
Judge Neil Gorsuch today refused to go along with an assumption by pro-abortion Senator Dianne Feinstein that the Roe versus Wade abortion case is “super precedent.”
Feinstein attempted to trap the appeals court judge into agreeing that the infamous Roe case and its decision allowing unlimited abortions is a “super precedent” that cannot be overturned. Gorsuch did not take the bait and left himself room to overturn the pro-abortion decision should he be affirmed for the Supreme Court.
Do you view Roe as “super precedent?” Feinstein asked.
Gorsuch merely said: “It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that, yes.”
Feinstein, attempted to assert her position, replied: “Dozens.”
http://www.lifenews.com/2017/03/21/judge-neil-gorsuch-refuses-to-say-roe-v-wade-case-for-unlimited-abortions-is-super-precedent/
The Life News article continues and is very positive with regards to Gorsuch and pro-life issues.
My sincere hope it that he will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but I've felt nervous about him. I have no idea why as the pro-life camp seems very positive towards him including pro-life stalwarts since Rick Santorum. Maybe it's in part because the left has been complimentary towards him on networks like CNN. Hopefully, someday Roe vs. Wade is overturned and I'll find out I had no reason to be nervous at all.
at least DiFi didn’t call it a super duper precedent.
That was a STUPID question, a far worse answer, and I don’t like Gorsuch at all and don’t trust him.
The Dread-Scott case was precedent at the SCOTUS for many more years than has been Roe V Wade. In neither case does precedent mean that a precedent cannot, rightfully even, be challenged by the SCOTUS.
Things like this remind of of Souter.
He’s terrible. He also took digs at Trump while interviewing him. He said Trump might be watching, so he wanted Gorsuch to confirm waterboarding is torture. He then said he was happy Trump picked Gorsuch because he was afraid Trump would pick a judge off TV.
I wonder how many times slavery was reaffirmed.
Gorsuch is smart enough not to answer a litmus test question.
TRump is smart enough not to ask it.
So I’m not alone in feeling that? It’s interesting. My dad was saying he felt the same way. I just feel uneasy like he could go John Roberts on Obamacare on us.
What the hell is a “super precedent”? Is that a term that’s circulating these days of food Fineswine just make it up on the spot? It is a precedent, sure, but so we’re a lot of rulings liberal SCOTI trashed.
I don't know WHY the Dems are so against him ( except that they didn't get the faaaaar lefty Obvama tried to slip in ), since he sounds more and more and MORE like someone they would usually be drooling over. He's NO Scalia; that's for sure!
I haven’t liked him from the start! And now....I loathe him and know, in guts, that he’s NOT a Scalia, nor a Thomas at all.
The only precedent that would matter to me are the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, and any and everything else written by the Founding Fathers and anybody else of note during that era. I don’t care about “precedent,” especially about anything modern.
Too many appointments/nominees are shooting off their damn mouths to slight Trump in one way or another.
This is a terrible sign.If you would not commit 100% to stop the baby killing I would have thrown your ass out the door? What the hell do you think happened with sotomyore and kagan.Are we stupid or just Naieve? I worry about this guy. I see Roberts all over this guy!!
He's not going to give any ammunition to the Liberals. He would have been a fool to have said he would vote to overrule anything.
That bitch, Feinstein doesn’t belong in the same room as Neil Gorsuch.
My reply to her statement would be too foul to print.
“Super Precedent” is something she made up with her twisted little fart brain.
Gorsuch reiterated in public what he had told many senators in private — that he is offended by attacks like the ones leveled by President Trump against federal judges who have ruled in the past year in cases involving him. “When anyone criticizes the honesty or the integrity or the motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening. I find that demoralizing — because I know the truth,” Gorsuch told Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).
“Anyone including the president of the United States?” Blumenthal asked, who had made the elephant-in-the-room comment.
“Anyone is anyone,” Gorsuch said.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-nominee-gorsuch-stresses-his-independence-from-president-trump/ar-BByuXVw?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartanntp
I think that if he is conservative, he has to know there are fellow judges (like the one in Hawaii) who make politically motivated decisions or are activity judges.
You don’t think Obama didn’t litmus test his ladies to ensure they would support and uphold Roe vs. Wade?
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.