Seems 'ol Gorsuch is down with infanticide and queer marriage, like all good lieberals. Will Schummer still filibuster Gorsuch? I hope so!


http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/gorsuch-comments-on-settled-law-unsettling-to-conservatives/

Republicans have waited eight years for the chance to place another conservative justice on the Supreme Court, and they apparently have their chance now that President Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat vacated by the late Antonin Scalia.


But his comments, during his confirmation hearing this week in the U.S. Senate, revealed the nation’s “settled law” includes “gay marriage” and unlimited abortion.

While being questioned by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on the destruction of unborn children, Gorsuch stated “the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

When Durbin asked if he accepted that, the judge replied, “That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.”

And when pressed on “same-sex marriage,” Gorsuch acknowledged the Supreme Court had ruled such marriages are protected by the Constitution. He declared Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down “same-sex marriage” bans nationwide in 2015, to be “absolutely settled law.”

Given this, Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at Conservative Review, is not the least bit confident Gorsuch is the constitutional conservative many Republicans are hoping for.

“Gorsuch is saying that Roe is the law of the land and Obergefell, which is one of the most radical opinions ever, is ‘absolutely settled law,'” Horowitz told WND. “There’s nothing there to give us assurances that he’s anywhere on par with Scalia, and that’s the seat we’re filling.”

Horowitz said Gorsuch’s deferential attitude toward Supreme Court precedent, even on cases that themselves upended precedent, illustrates the problem he wrote about in his book “Stolen


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/gorsuch-...ng-to-conservatives/#dtKiGPIEPy1r21JP.99

if that were true, the dhimmicrats would want him.

A law is legislation passed by congress. They passed no law on abortion. This 'law of the land' is a court decision, not a real law. It was a convoluted ruling to get abortion out of the constitution.

And this would be the Libertarian's position as well.

Time will only tell. Real hard to get another Scalia. Real sure this guy is not another Ginsburg, Sotomyer or Kegan. Hope for the best. Hasbeen

I don't want a conservative Justice! I want a Justice that will heed the Constitution.

We MUST depoliticize the Supreme Court or we are doomed.

I'm still trying to understand how abortion and gay marriage affects my everyday life.

Yes, don't forget that virtually everywhere homosexual marriage was voted on by the people, it failed. Courts have made this the law, and it is not their function.

This.

In spades.

The Constitution has no political affiliation.

A lot of folks here don't want a constitutional judge, they want a cheerleader for all of their causes.

And folks wonder why we can't ever get anything done.

Do you want a "judicial activist" appointed to the SC? Or one that respects "stare decisis"?

Years ago, they talked about, "Strict Constructionism, and Loose Constructionism".

Perhaps someone brighter than I could elaborate on that.

Heller is also settled law.

The way to end abortion is by ammending the Constitution to prohibit it, or at least allow it to be restricted by the states.

If guys want to poke each other in the pooper and settle down in a vine- covered cottage, it's of no concern to me. Personally, I don't get the attraction, but then I also don't like lima beans.

Quit going JeffO and make America Great Again...this time by stfu.

How does murder affect your every day life?

I dont want zerocare to be the law of the land.

When someone is said to be a conservative it means that they interpret the constitution literally as it is written.
A liberal interprets the constitution as a living breathing changing with the times document.
They have a liberal view as to what the constitution means.

I can't disagree with any of that other than to go a bit farther and to say that to REALLY end abortion, the private sector (IOW Christianity) need to win hearts and minds to Jesus. If that were the case, there would be few abortions. And like marriage, there would be no need for the government to either outlaw or legalize it.

Not to a lieberal. And ultimately, they are the ones who win, because conservatives are too polite to destroy them.

How about by pointing out neither abortion or marriage is an enumerated responsibility of the federal government by the constitution, therefore the scotus rulings are illegal and state law prevails?

You seem to be drawn to ignorance and censureship. You turning lieberal?

It IS the law of the land.

John Roberts upheld that.

I agree, but the way to end it is to change the Constitution and put it out of reach (as far as possible, anyway). We're well past the point where arguing about Federal over-reach is a workable tactic.

I've been less and less enamored with Gorsuch starting from day one. He's also weak on torture, based on his history. Who the hell picked this guy?

It shifts the culture in the direction pushed by the Cultural Marxists.

Being in favor of keeping unconstitutional past decisions isn't being pro-Constitution.

Sorry, you can't find stare decisis in the Constitution. If a past decision was unconstitutional, it needs overturning.

Ignorance is not knowing things, like how to spell censorship. You otoh, can happily keep demonstrating both your ignorance and lack of intellect by actually siding with "lieberals" on subjects and also adopting their tactic of calling out enemies on things they themselves are guilty of. I would never censor you. I did however, attempt to counsel you to quit acting retarded. But maybe it's not an act.

He said those things in his confirmation hearings. Would you expect a far leftie in the same place say what they really intend to do? No. None of what Gorsuch said there is binding, it's all just flim-flam to keep from being rejected. Everybody knows that. Or ought to.

Example of strict construction: Nowhere within the four corners of the Constitution do we find a right to have an abortion.

Example of loose construction: We find the right to an abortion within the penumbras, formed by emanations from other rights found in the Bill of Rights.

I don't believe there is any chance of decent amendments to the constitution being passed by the states at this time of intense polarization.

It matters not what Judge Gorsuch says at the "hearings". He will not be confirmed, Republicans do not have votes to end a Democrat filibuster or to change the rules to end filibusters on SC appointments. The GOP is not known as the Stupid Party for nothing.

That is certainly the iideal, God-honoring way, but the law needs to protect the innocent unborn, regardless of the spiritual situation of the parents,

As far as the pooper-pokers go, they are making a free-will decision to do what they know is wrong and will pay the price in the end (terrible pun). Convincing them to abandon their practice will be difficult, especially with all the liberal churches caving on doctrine. Fundamentalists on the other hand, generally try to threaten and berate people to Jesus. Neither approach is very helpful. I simply don't see the State's role in this.

Ahhhhh, another spelling nazi. It fits you well. Might be a lieberal, too. They like to say things like stfu and then try to claim it's not what it is.

I think Gorsuch will be a great disappointment if he actually believes Roe and gay marriage are settled law. Maybe that means nothing to you. Lieberals are on board with you on that.

Yup, Old EE probably frown on "Carpet Bombing Mexican peasants' too.
....sarcasm off,
.....your quote above IS one of the stupider posts I've seen this year.

GTC

Friends don't let friends go the JeffO route. You were against Trump before you were for him. I get it.

You will not get a perfect candidate for SCOTUS, but Gorsuch is about as good as it gets. Logic dictates if we lose out on him we will get an inferior one.

I am all for protecting the unborn, but currently, Roe is the law of the land. You can be assured that if Gorsuch got a decent chance to undo it, he would. He doesn't need to thump his chest and proudly answer an unasked question though.

Amen and amen.

This might fit in somewhere, sadly, it seems, the only politician that does not lie at sometime, is a politician that is not elected, or appointed.

No, he didn't. He answered the ones that were asked in a way that likely pleased the lieberals and put conservatives on notice. But not all noticed.

I don't know about that. Remember Harriet Miers? Conservatives demanded Bush withdraw that pick and try again. Of course Roberts betrayed us on Obamacare, but at least he had a record indicating strict constructionism, which Miers certainly didn't.

Great.

Another one.

He will absolutely be confirmed! Even if they have to use the "nuclear option".

I watched this part of the questioning. As I recall, Gorsuch mentioned that it is up to scientist to determine what the age of viability is and that he is not a scientist or something to that effect.

When my daughter was in the Nic-U (SP) I saw pictures of twin girls that were born at 4 months. They were 4 years old in the pictures. Right now a women can have an abortion up to 20 weeks or 5 months. So it looks like there is some wriggle room on when abortion can happen. Also, from what I have read the Roe-v-Wade decision game down to when life begins. Science have proven life begins much earlier than previously thought so Gorsuch might not be the liberal that is feared.

Pretty easy question!

This ^^^

kwg

Looks like ol' CuckyD is back with his liberal bullscat.

Nothin wrong with any of Gorsuch's answers.

The SC rulings cited in the questions *are* the law of the land.

At this time.

When President Trump gets 6 conservative justices on the SC, then those laws are going to change. Possible viability will be the cutoff for *any* abortion, and the legality of the procedure will be sent back to the states, as it should be.



SC rulings are supposed to examine laws in light of the limits of the Constitution, not determine if you care about them or not.

Piss off a QWEERTY, and you'll find out soon enough how the gay socialist agenda cost you your job, your business and your future.

The supreme court generally allows settled law to stand; this allows for less disruption in the marketplace (business and citizens like a common footing that doesn't jump around with each new Administration/Court).

Gorsuch's possible future opinions are what has the Democrats concerned.

The Republicans are setting themselves up for future payback (and politicians have long memories). At some point, the Democrats will control the Presidency and the Congress again.

It is interesting to note that Merrick Garland was overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate in 1997 with significant Republican support. Yet, he didn't even the courtesy of a vote for Supreme Court appointment. Regardless of how a vote went, he certainly deserved a hearing and vote.

That's a false dichotomy. Those who worship at the alter of stare decisis aren't the opposite of judicial activists. One who favors the ruling in Roe v Wade, for example, would be an example of a judicial activism proponent, since that decision essentially created law without regard for the limits of the Constitution. These activists appeal to stare decisis as a mechanism for preserving activist decisions. A strict constructionist, to the contrary, would oppose stare decisis to the extent that it interfered with overturning the judicial activist rule created in Roe v Wade.

I always thought those are the same animal, but I agree on the sanctity of the Constitution.

They just followed the tradition Biden and Schumer declared by letting the "people" have a say in an election year.

Precisely. Conservatives want originalist, strict constructionist, justices. Leftists want activist judges that will uphold Roe v Wade and homo marriage, both of which were activist decisions.

Not true.

There are plenty of Conservatives around that want a judge to rule the way they want and don't care if it follows the Constitution or not.

there are Conservatives here that are the same way.

Some Conservatives want activist judges as well.

Those who refuse to accept that a Women's body is hers and that the Government has no business involving themselves in the bedrooms of adults....

Are of the same ilk as those who refuse to accept the second amendment.

And Gorsuch may not be confirmed. I do not trust 5-7 Republicans who will likely not allow the process to go Nuclear.

I think the Democrats know this.

I also think some of the Republicans were very happy that Trump got hung out to dry by Ryan on Friday.

Being opposed to the courts illegally imposing on an unwilling society a new definition of a ten thousand year old institution doesn't equate to wanting to involve government in oversight of adult bedrooms.

And that "opinion" is yours and goes against stated law per the 1st, 4th and 14th amendments.

It's also the reasoning and logic behind the reality that these issues as well as the second amendment fights will go on forever.

Yep, and I wish they would get cracking on making prostitution legal. That would help cut student debt and get a lot of 18 year old gals out of their parents house.

Without stare decisis the law of the land would actually be the law of the moment... and there is some word play there.

Changing Roe by any means other than Constitutional Convention will not happen... and frankly the risks in throwing the Constitution wide open are huge...

That's what it all boils down to.

SC Justices ought to follow the constitution.

Anyone that wants favors from the Supreme Court doesn't have much regard for the constitution.

Wanting past activist decisions overturned is called strict constructionism/originalism.

That's what most people don't get when Gorsuch answered questions about some things the way he did...

Yes. It's settled law. Until it isn't, and the subject comes before the SC again. Roe v Wade is settled.

But, ______ v _______ in the future isn't.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

That's what I was hoping he was doing, but if he's not willing to come out and defend actual originalism/strict constructionism, it's a big risk putting him in there. If he's approved, I hope you are correct.

I hope I'm correct also.

Sometimes you just don't know what a fish has been eating until you clean it.

I personally don't think he's another Roberts.

Lots of earlier SC rulings were overturned by new cases to the SC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

Gotcha. I agree with your sentiments, but I don't think we define "conservative" quite the same way...no substance for an argument here. It's a good illustration of the problem with labels, though.

I think/thought Gorsuch was a good man, won't matter if the D's block him one way or another out of principle alone.

It would be stupid not to use the so-called nuclear option as that it is just a matter of time until it is used. The Dems won't hesitate to use ignore regardless of what is done now. It is war. Use all your weapons.

All that said we may as well end the republic. You can't have a government when there is open warfare. The experiment is over.

Don't fug around with the dems. Just go nuclear.

Gorsuch won't be the only SC nominee.

Dems will fight every one with all they have.

I am afraid you're probably right, JoeBob. I don't see how there can ever be peace. These bastards are intent upon imposing their will on the rest of us, and I think most of us would rather eat broken beer bottles than accept that.

To quote Dan Ackroyd: : "Jane, you ignorant slut!"

Don't be foolish. Gorsuch has to go through the tap-dance and the interrogation that is confirmation

Do you want him to be defiant about everything the Left holds dear, and then get Borked, or would you rather him give them as little ammo as possible to shoot him down?

This guy has been coached by those who know the game. When asked if ANY of that chit is "settled law", the answer is "YES". It is settled, for now.

I will tell all Right to Lifers (which I am) that you will see unicorns and leprechauns ride rainbows before Roe v Wade gets reversed. I mean, do you really believe after nearly 50 years, a half Century, the Court will over turn it and it would stand? Conservatives would be swept out of office and never see power for 100 years afterwards, if ever. The Left would remake the Court and subsequently overturn it again.

We lost that one in '72, and we live with it. That is a battle that can only be won from pews and the pulpit, one family at a time. Not by law.

Give Gorsuch credit for being smart. Do you want him to defy the Dems and lose or be smart and get confirmed. Face it, if Grouch goes down, the next nominee will be more liberal.

The actual Gorsuch as a SC judge will not be known unless/until he is doing that work. He gives the appearance of one who will ethically try to ignore and get past the current political maneuvering so he can do what he loves - be a constructionist judge. IMHO, he would be open to turning past rulings that were way too loose. Hoping for the best - who would be better these days?
TRH - thanks for the good contributions here.

From here on out there is no bi-partisanship. There is no cooperation. There isn't even an agreement on what is proper procedure. There will only be the party in power asserting its will. And we are about to take the next step. If and it is a big if, the Dems ever get control of the House again, they will impeach Trump. They don't need a good reason, it will be a purely partisan exercise. Once that happens, it will be used against any president when his party doesn't control Congress, but particularly by the Dems.

It is over. Realize it and live accordingly.

You may be right.

Only if you are ok with a lieberal court. Most are not.

The people don't care how a law gets done, just so it does the right thing. Nobody will ever remember, or care, that a nuclear option was used.

RINOs in congress are still bein pussies about this.

Remains to be seen if President Trump can change that attitude.

Ahhhh the #NeverTrump faction is at it again. Still butthurt.

I'd offer to start a collection to get them a 55gal drum of personal lubricant but no one offered to chip in for Jeff_O so I'm guessing we'll see the same results. Sorry #NeverTrump!

Every Supreme Court Justice has to look to precedence. That doesn't mean it can't be overturned or moderated.

If remember correctly it was declared a tax. I wonder how that will play out if everybody is not required to buy insurance. Can't tax just some of the people. Hasbeen

It's not his job to make law.

That's what hurt the Dems with Garland. The Reps remembered what The Biden rule was and acted on it. Hasbeen

Is it possible that Gorsuch is just telling 'em (the Libbys) what they wanna hear, though in best neutralist "liberal-speak" as possible - befitting a "wanna-be" Supreme Court Justice?

No, he was saying precedent is settled law, until it isn't (meaning until another case comes along and it becomes obvious precedent must be overturned for XYZ reasons). Just because "abortion" doesn't appear in the constitution and therefore should be left to the states, settled law/precedent states abortion is a right. Until a case comes along whereby Roe v. Wade can be overturned, abortion is a right.

I don't get why this is so hard for some people to understand, other than the fact they let feelings get in their way. This is how our legal system works, for better or for worse.

I'm not a lawyer so i really have no significant education in legal process (other than the four or five law classes required in college).



I'm not emotionally motivated in this such that it clouds my judgement: Rather, that i am hypothesizing Gorsuch's rationale to respond as he did out of desire to be confirmed as the next Supreme.

If that is truly his approach to interpreting the constitutionality of settled law/precedent I hope he remains as settled on the constitutionality of the 2nd Amendment, et al.

I listened to some of the hearing, and I do not have a problem with how he answered the questions.

He did say that the SCOTUS decision was settled Law, and for him, in his CURRENT position, it is. They are a 'superior' court to the one he now sits on.

I did not hear him say that SCOTUS decisions cannot be overturned.

He did say that preference or deference, is granted to previous decisions, until something presuades or prompts a change.

He also said that he will follow 'bad Law'.. adding that it was not his job to do Congress' job. Congress writes the Laws, the Judges interpret. If you don't like my decision/opinion then you should write clearer Law. He said it was NOT his job to straighten out BAD Law.

He also said there is no place for 'Politics' in deciding, judging, opining from the bench....

What little you can learn from these hearings.... IMHO Gorsuch will be a fine SCOTUS justice and Sen Leahy is an absolute DOLT................

That is NICU an acronym for Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The part about surviving 16 week twins (4 months) is BS (not your fault). At 16 weeks a fetus is about 4" long and weights about 3.5 ounces. The growth of a fetus is very uniform regardless of genetics - race, gender, ...etc, to about 25 weeks then genetics govern the growth. To place a fetus this size on a ventilator would require an endotracheal tube about the size of a small coffee swizzle stick. The edge of viability today is about 21-23 weeks and about 12-16 ounces. I have been a Neonatal Nurse Practitioner for 28 years and a neonatal nurse for 35.

Sir, I ran EMS for 15 years. Finally quit after a string of "too many dead babies." No longer have the stones to work with really sick or high risk babies on a regular basis. My hat is off to you for your service. Thank you...

Spot On!

Some folks won't be satisfied unless they have a flag bearer for their personal agenda, constitution and law be damned.

Gorsuch is solid.

That's my opinion too. Plus 1.

Kinda of a simplistic strawman question, but no it don't, unless it requires I have to put in some overtime.

It only affects those participating in it.

There's never been a case where a fetus lived prior to 21 weeks.

The majority of states only allow abortions in the first 12 weeks, and most abortions are done in the first 8 weeks.

"When life begins" makes no difference.

You're under the delusion that "society" doesn't want those things when really it's only a small portion that don't.