TRUMP CHOOSES EPISCOPALIAN NEIL GORSUCH
AS U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2017/01/31/trump-chooses-episcopalian-neil-gorsuch-as-u-s-supreme-court-nominee/;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
President Trump has announced that he
has nominated 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve
on the U.S. Supreme Court as the replacement for the late Justice
Antonin Scalia.
“Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal
skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline and has earned
bipartisan support,” Trump stated in introducing his pick to the public
Tuesday night.
“Mr. President, I am honored and I am humbled. Thank you
very much,” Gorsuch, an Episcopalian, said to applause in accepting the
nomination.Gorsuch, now 49, had been nominated to the 10th Circuit in 2006 by then-President George W. Bush. He was a graduate of Harvard Law School and has a PhD. from Oxford. He served as a clerk under current Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Gorsuch is known for ruling in favor of the popular craft chain Hobby Lobby, which had sued the Obama administration over its abortion pill mandate. The company had sued to retain the right not to cover contraceptives that it considers to be abortifacients, such as the morning-after pill. Gorsuch pointed to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act in his ruling.
“It is not for secular courts to rewrite the religious complaint of a faithful adherent, or to decide whether a religious teaching about complicity imposes ‘too much’ moral disapproval on those only ‘indirectly’ assisting wrongful conduct,” he wrote in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. “Whether an act of complicity is or isn’t ‘too attenuated’ from the underlying wrong is sometimes itself a matter of faith we must respect.”
Gorsuch was likewise a part of a ruling in favor of the Roman Catholic Little Sisters of the Poor, which had also sued the Obama administration over the abortion pill mandate.
While it is not known where Gorsuch himself stands on abortion, he is the author of the book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” in which he concludes that “human life is intrinsically valuable and that intentional killing is always wrong.”
However, some have questioned whether or not Gorsuch would seek to end abortion if the matter came before him on the bench. Andy Schlafly, an attorney and the son of the late Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum—who had supported Trump prior to her death—recently stated that Gorsuch “has never said or written anything pro-life.” He also said that Gorsuch is a “big supporter [of] granting special rights to men who say they have a female … identity.”
But Ed Whelan, who disagrees with both of Schlafly’s assertions, notes for the National Review that Gorsuch had dissented from the majority opinion when his colleagues ruled in Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert that that state of Utah could not defund the abortion giant Planned Parenthood.
“Respectfully, the panel in this case not only conducted its own de novo review of the record, it relaxed PPAU’s burden of proof and even seemed to reverse it,” Gorsuch wrote.
“Respectfully, this case warrants rehearing,” he opined. “As it stands, the panel opinion leaves litigants in preliminary injunction disputes reason to worry that this court will sometimes deny deference to district court factual findings; relax the burden of proof by favoring attenuated causal claims our precedent disfavors; and invoke
arguments for reversal untested by the parties, unsupported by the record, and inconsistent with principles of comity.”
Gorsuch has also seemed to indicate that he believes the government should be permitted to erect religious displays on public property, disagreeing with his colleagues who rejected a rehearing in the 2007 case of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, which involved a Ten Commandments display.
Gorsuch is stated by others as being much like Scalia, including being an “originalist,” that is, seeking to interpret the Constitution in the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers. He cited the high court justice in his acceptance speech as Scalia’s wife sat in the audience.
In an article for the Case Western Reserve Law Review, Gorsuch recalled being overcome with sorrow upon hearing of Scalia’s death. He had been taking a skiing trip when his phone rang with the news.
“I immediately lost what breath I had left, and I am not embarrassed to admit that I couldn’t see the rest of the way down the mountain for the tears,” Gorsuch wrote.
He praised Scalia as being a “lion of the law.”
“He really was a lion of the law: docile in private life but a ferocious fighter when at work, with a roar that could echo for miles,” Gorsuch stated. “Volumes rightly will be written about his contributions to American law, on the bench and off.”
As previously reported, Trump had outlined even before the election that he intended on appointing a Supreme Court justice like the late Antonin Scalia.
“I will strike down Roe v. Wade, but I will also strike down a law that is the opposite of Roe v. Wade,” Scalia outlined in a 2002 Pew Forum. “You know, both sides in that debate want the Supreme Court to decide the matter for them. One [side] wants no state to be able to prohibit abortion and the other one wants every state to have to prohibit abortion, and they’re both wrong.”
“And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the equal protection clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that’s wrong,” Scalia further explained in a 2008 60 Minutes interview. “I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons.”
He also noted that religion has very little to do with his decisions.
“I try mightily to prevent my religious views or my political views or my philosophical views from affecting my interpretation of the laws, which is what my job is about,” he stated. “They can make me leave the bench if I find that I’m enmeshed in an immoral operation, but the only one of my religious views that has anything to do with my job as a judge is the seventh commandment—thou shalt not lie. I try to observe that faithfully, but other than that I don’t think any of my religious views have anything to do with how I do my job as a judge.”
As previously reported, Trump originally had 21 judges on his Supreme Court list, with Judges William Pryor, Thomas Hardiman and Gorsuch stated to be on his shortlist. Pryor was especially controversial as he had prosecuted “Ten Commandments Judge” Roy Moore and had vowed to uphold Roe v. Wade while serving in the 11th Circuit.
Diane Sykes, likewise on the list, was also controversial as she had written in a Planned Parenthood ruling that abortion is a woman’s “right.”
Trump advisor Leonard Leo is stated to have helped the president with narrowing down the list and making a selection.
_______________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION OF GORSUCH AS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE BY TRUMP:
_______________________________________________________
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST ABOUT GORSUCH:
CONTACT TRUMP: SAY NO TO NEIL GORSUCH FOR SUPREME COURT
SAY NO TO NEIL GORSUCH FOR SUPREME COURT
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
By Kelleigh Nelson
January 25, 2017
NewsWithViews.com
January 25, 2017
NewsWithViews.com
One
of the reasons I changed — one of the primary reasons — a
friend of mine’s wife was pregnant, in this case married. She was
pregnant and he didn’t really want the baby. And he was telling
me the story,” Trump told Brody. “He was crying as he was
telling me the story. He ends up having the baby and the baby is the apple
of his eye. It’s the greatest thing that’s ever happened to
him. And you know here’s a baby that wasn’t going to be let
into life. And I heard this, and some other stories, and I am pro-life.
—Donald J. Trump
Our
45th President told us he would put pro-life judges on our Supreme Court.
However, those who helped him with the list of conservative judges were
both the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation (called Heretic
Foundation by many of my well-educated friends).
Neil
Gorsuch is Not Pro-Life
The
latest choice
we’re now hearing is at the top of the list is Neil
Gorsuch. Neil Gorsuch is NOT pro-life. His selection
would violate Trump's pledge to nominate a pro-life justice to the Supreme
Court. Roe v. Wade would not be overturned for 40 years if the
49-year-old Gorsuch is picked. Forty million more babies would
be murdered in their mothers’ wombs with this choice.
The
pro-life movement has only a few hours or days to object, protest, criticize,
and veto the nomination of this pro-choice candidate. Trump floats these
trial balloons to see if people object. We must strongly object,
and please speak out loudly now.
Gorsuch
has never said or written anything pro-life. Andy Schlafly knew him in
law school and afterwards, and has reviewed his opinions and his book.
He's written multiple opinions that demonstrate he is not
pro-life.
For
example, in the case of Pino v. U.S., Gorsuch discussed whether a 20-week-old
"nonviable fetus" had the same rights as a "viable fetus."
Gorsuch, showing that he is not pro-life, indicated that his answer is
"no" unless the Oklahoma Supreme Court specifically found rights
for the "nonviable fetus." Rather than render a pro-life ruling,
Gorsuch punted this issue to the Oklahoma Supreme Court for it to decide.
Gorsuch's approach is similar to the unjust approach based on viability
that underlies Roe v. Wade.
More
information, including how Gorsuch opposes overturning precedent even
when it is wrong, is here.
He supports special rights for transgenders, too. And he is no Scalia,
as Gorsuch was not even on the Law Review in law school.
We've
been down this road before, and it doesn't work for Republican presidents.
Andy Schlafly recently spoke at a large conservative conference in Michigan,
a state Trump carried by barely 10,000 votes based on immense efforts
by pro-lifers there. That margin disappears if Trump is misled to break
his pro-life pledge for the Supreme Court.
Evangelicals
spoke out and vetoed the previous top choice, Bill Pryor. Now
it is urgent that pro-lifers speak out immediately and veto Neil Gorsuch.
These
choices are coming from the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation.
The Federalist Society is attempting to get a pro-Roe judge chosen instead
of another Scalia.
Who
is the Federalist Society?
The
Federalist Society, is allegedly an organization of conservatives and
libertarians seeking reform of the current American legal system in accordance
with a textualistic or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
It is one of the nation's most influential legal organizations, masquerading
as something they are not.
The
Federalist Society began at Yale
Law School, (home of Skull and Bones), Harvard
Law School (that bastion of higher liberal learning), and the University
of Chicago Law School, (home of Bill Ayers and where protestors disallowed
Trump rally). It originally started as a student organization which challenged
what its members perceived as the orthodox American liberal ideology found
in most law schools. Doesn’t this actually make you laugh when these
three Ivy league schools are known as having a Marxist agenda?
Pro-Lifers
Need to Respond
There
are ways to respond, and as my friend Devvy Kidd said, “We have
to flood the White House with calls, tweets, emails. This has worked in
the past if enough people do it.”
The
comment phone number is: 202-456-1111.
The
caller simply needs to say:
I strenuously object to Neil Gorsuch as a supreme court justice nominee. He is not pro-life. I urge President Trump to nominate:Justice Charles Canady - number one choice, or:Judge Jennifer Elrod or Judge Edith Jones
You
can also tweet Donald Trump, Kellyanne Conway, Jeff Sessions, Mike Pence,
Mike Pompeo, Sean Spicer, etc. Simply tweet, “Gorsuch is
not pro-life. Choose true pro-lifers…Charles Canady, Judge Elrod
or Edith Jones.”
You
can email the White House here.
You
can comment on Face Book here.
Another
option is to send a fax signed by as many people as possible. If people
belong to a church or some group, just do a short letter with all the
signatures and fax it. Phone calls can be ignored, but a pile of 50,000
faxes can't. Time is of the essence.
WH fax:
202-456-7890
Conclusion
It is
up to the American people to let our President know where we stand. Life
is God given, and the Lord said in Deuteronomy, CHOOSE LIFE!
Let President Trump know we want Pro-Life Justices!
______________________________________________________
Get in Touch with The White House | whitehouse.gov
TO EMAIL, SEE: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
____________________________________
SEE ALSO:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/25276-trump-s-supreme-court-pick-neil-gorsuch-an-originalist
