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 ...
I’ve been meaning to say that I think Gorsuch is a poor candidate for the SCOTUS. It’s just about what I’ve gleaned on C-Span.
Something is just not right about the man, if you will, despite the posted photos with him associating with Scalia, who was probably murdered.
And so, here is the evidence. Sigh.
www.libertariansforlife.org
Yes, I know about this; it’s one of many RED FLAGS that have turned my stomach.
Had he answered that he would seek to overturn Roe, he would be guilty of the same judicial activism he has been against for some time now.
He’s going to be another Roberts...at best and I hope to NOT have as many decades ahead of me, as you imagine I shall have.
Too bad that President Trump took some VERY bad advice about him.
Which is also why homosexuality, while not a good thing, should be tolerated. Many fewer child murders, IMHO.
Anything from the fascist “media” exploding heads about Gorsuch saying that DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER is “the law of the land”? As long as we have the Second Amendment, the far left loses. They can’t take away our country until they take away our guns.
Or challenged by Congress.
if they only had a spine.
actually, Roe v. Wade would be VERY EASY to overturn, on the merits anyway.
Abortion is nowhere even mentioned or contemplated in the constitution. Even the Roe decision acknowledges this,
having to “find abortion” in the “pnumbra” (unseeable shadows) of the constitution.
so that part of the nominee’s statement is NOT reassuring, to put it mildly.
as for his stated independence, fine with me, good on that.
he should be independent, but not independent of the constitution like Ginzberg and a couple of the others nowadays on the court. And, not independent of the constitution like Roe v. Wade.
Well, bye. And don’t let the door hit your a** on the way out.
Sure, murder and rape will always be here, but we don’t make them legal because of it or provide a safe place for them to occur. Abortion must be made illegal.
Slavery was a super precedent.
Women not voting was a super precedent.
Bibles and God in public schools was a super precedent here, 180 years even before the usa.
But the liberals fought to destroy them. If its a precedent they dont like it doesnt matter.
Liberal and progressive are strong synonyms for hypocrite.
Mike Cernovich, a prominent Trump supporter who is a lawyer, says that his friends who are lawyers say that Gorsuch is a Roberts not a Scalia.
Should have picked William Pryor who is adamantly pro-life and watched the leftist heads explode. That said, they might have lost votes from the moderates like Collins and even the nuclear option wouldn’t have gotten him through.
Main legal point 1) If A strikes B with the intent to do harm and as a result B miscarries her five-week-old fetus, On these facts, A would be responsible for the death of a “person” both civilly and criminally.
In effect, Roe v. Wade gave a woman the right to redefine the legal “person” in her womb as a parasite. In every other scenario that child is afforded all the rights vested in all postnatal persons. With enthusiasm.
See: absolute, actual, axiomatic, certain, conclusive, concrete, de facto, definite, definitive, demonstrable, explicit, express, fixed, incontestable, peremptory, positive, precise, specific.......
He's out.
I always wondered why the democrats hated W so much. He gave them everything they wanted.
As for Roe V Wade, the SC has been 5-4 for a long time. Starting with Reagan republicans have been in the white house 20 out of 28 years and Roe V Wade is still the law. I don’t see it ever being overturned.
And THAT is WHY that query was inane, banal, and too damned stupid for words!
When the Bill of Rights (BoR) was drafted, the states decided that they didn’t have to respect the rights expressly protected by the BoR. The states required only the feds to respect those rights.
So hypothetically speaking, even if the Founding States had included the express right to have an abortion in the BoR, there was nothing in the Constitution stopping the states from prohibiting abortion. Only the feds couldn’t deny women such a right.
But when the states ratified the 14th Amendment (14A) they likewise obligated themselves to respect the rights that they amend the Constitution to expressly protect.
In fact, the congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had clearly indicated that the amendment applies only those rights that the states amend the Constitution to expressly protect to the states.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” —John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
But since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the so-called “constitutional” right to have an abortion, the state sovereignty-ignoring justices who decided Roe v. Wade against the states did so without having a constitutionally enumerated right to have an abortion to throw at the states.
In other words, corrupt justices wrongly politically created the so-called “constitutional” right to have an abortion from the bench, ignoring that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had condemned interpolations of the Constitution.
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added].” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
As a consequence of the Court’s unconstitutional decision in Roe v. Wade imo, lawless Democrats began to recognize that they had a source of unending votes to become career politicians.
More specifically, they began exploiting low-information women, women who evidently don’t understand the necessity of constitutionally enumerated rights.
In other words, lawless Democrats began making use of the 19th Amendment, in conjunction with the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, to start winning the votes of many generations of women. Democrats did so by giving women the Constitution-ignoring assurance that lawmakers would be able to insure a majority of pro-abortion activist justices on the Supreme Court as long as women kept electing pro-abortion Democrats to office.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, pro-abortion, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Anthony Kennedy,perhaps?
This judge goes to a pretty liberal church,I believe.
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.