By Nancy Thorner –
An article in the Los Angeles Times by David G, Savage on January 24, 2017, “Conservative Colorado judge emerges as a top contender to fill Scalia’s Supreme Court seat,” confirmed that Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, 49, has emerged as a leading contender for President Trump’s first Supreme Court nomination. Two others top contenders for the position are Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama, who serves on the U.S. 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, and Judge Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, who serves on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court in Chicago.
Judge Gorsuch currently serves on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. He was a former law clerk to both Justice Byron White and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, having also served in the George W. Bush administration’s Justice Department.
The LA Times article speaks of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch as a highly regarded conservative jurist, best known for upholding religious liberty rights in the legal battles over Obamacare. Judge Gorsuch currently serves on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. He is a former former clerk to both Justice Byron White and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, having also so served in the George W. Bush administration’s Justice Department.
Supporters of Gorsuch perceive him as a jurist who has strong academic credentials, a gift for clear writing, and a devotion to deciding cases based on the original meaning of the Constitution and the text of statutes, much in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Judge Gorsuch is likewise seen as someone who might be more easily confirmed in the Senate than other Supreme Court nominees, given that Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently warned that Democrats would fight hard to stop court nominees who were not “bipartisan and mainstream.”
Gorsuch was successful in easily winning a Senate confirmation on a voice vote in 2006 as an appointee of President George W. Bush. John Malcolm, a lawyer at the Heritage Foundation, believes that Gorsuch would be less contentious than some of the other Supreme Court nominees because he doesn’t have a record of strident comments that would fuel a confirmation fight.
Here therein lies the problem. We’ve been down this road before with the first President Bush breaking his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. It doesn’t work for Republican presidents. Trump’s margin of victory disappears in a state like Michigan, a state Trump carried by barely 10,000 votes based on immense efforts by pro-lifers there, if Trump is misled to break his pro-life pledge for the Supreme Court. Most importantly, every Republican President after Hoover made a lousy first choice for Supreme Court. We can’t allow President Trump to go down the same destructive path
As the leading contender for Justice Scalia’s vacancy, 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 won’t be overturned for 40 years if the 49-year-old Gorsuch is picked. That is 40 million more unborn children who will be aborted based on this.
As Andy Schlafly, Esq, first shared on January 24, 2017:
- “For starters, Gorsuch has never said or written anything pro-life. I knew him in law school and afterwards, and I’ve reviewed his opinions and his book. He’s written multiple opinions that demonstrate he’s 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 specially 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.”
Mr. Schlafly finished his directive with this plea:
“Our 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.”
“Evangelicals spoke out and vetoed Bill Pryor. Now it is urgent that pro-lifers speak out immediately and veto Neil Gorsuch.”
In a same day followup, 1/24/2017, Andy Schlafly noted the enormous positive response he received back from his earlier plea to pro-lifers to strongly object and to speak out loudly now against Judge Neil Gorsuch.
Schlafly observed how there is a small, but determined, network of people who pretend all the candidates are equally acceptable. That’s utter nonsense, as some candidates would be terrific, while others resemble David Souter.
Federalist Society ally Ed Whelan, who doesn’t even support Trump’s pro-life pledge, pretends that Gorsuch’s book against assisted suicide gives him pro-life credentials. Of course he’s going to bluster against my attempt to fulfill the pledge. It is worth noting that all the pro-aborts on the Supreme Court voted against a constitutional right to assisted suicide.
As far as how justices are ranked, an independent, published ranking of judges said Gorsuch is not even in the top 100 most conservative federal appellate judges. See Article: Judged by the Company You Keep: An Empirical Study of the Ideologies of Judges on the United States Court of Appeals, 51 B.C. L. Rev. 1133 (Sept. 2010).
It is in the self-serving interest of the Federalist Society to have Trump pick as young as one of its candidates as possible, so for decades afterwards the Federalist Society can claim having someone on the Supreme Court who will speak at their conventions and enable them to raise money. But is it in the interest of conservatives or the American people to have someone sit on the Supreme Court for 35+ years?
As the Federalist Society led in picking the 21 individuals on the list of Supreme Court Justices for consideration by President Trump, it can be questioned why the Federalist Society had so much sway in compiling the list? After all, the Federalist Society is not a pro-life organization. If published reports are correct, all the finalists are young, Federalist Society candidates who are not as qualified (or as pro-life) as other candidates whom Trump should be interviewing and picking.
There is no directive that binds President Trump to only the names on the list of 21. Here are several good candidates to recommend when you place your calls: Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Canady and U.S. Court of Appeals Judges Jennifer Elrod and Edith Jones.
In addition to giving feedback to Trump, Schlafly suggested it would be helpful to contact the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ted Cruz, for example, could block pro-choice candidates by speaking out against them.