Neil Gorsuch is NOT another Scalia

Neil Gorsuch is NOT another Scalia

[More like another Anthony Kennedy?]

Steve Jalsevac

March 24, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — I have been holding my opinion on Neil Gorsuch. From the time he was announced as Trump’s highly lauded Supreme Court nominee and then more information started to come out about him, I have been getting an uncomfortable feeling about the nomination. And now I am worried.

Despite effusive praise from numerous pro-life and pro-family leaders, this man is NOT, as Trump has repeatedly claimed, another Scalia. In my view, the President has been misled – although Gorsuch does have many praiseworthy characteristics as a justice.

But can we trust that he will courageously rule as the nation desperately needs him to rule on all of the most crucial issues? I think there are now legitimate doubts, although on many issues he will likely rule well.

During day three of the Senate confirmation hearing, Gorsuch was asked by Senator Dick Durbin whether the intentional taking of unborn life is wrong.

He responded, “The Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person, for purposes of the 14th Amendment. That [decision] is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land.”

To me, there was something unnerving about how far he went in accepting the current realities of that horrendous decision. I just can’t imagine that Justice Scalia would have given such an unqualified response regarding one of the more notorious and immoral decisions in Supreme Court history.

Also during the confirmation hearings, in response to a question about same-sex “marriage” and the results of the Obergefell decision – which many consider an even more outrageously corrupt and activist Supreme Court decision than Roe v Wade — Gorsuch stated it “is absolutely settled law.”

He did not just call it “settled law,” which one could say, well, yes, at the moment, in legal terms that is what it could be said to be … for now. But he unnecessarily and disturbingly added the word “absolutely.” Why did he go to that length?

That comment seemed to indicate Gorsuch is not a full constitutional originalist. No originalist would ever make such a comment that appears to betray the Constitution and the intentions of the Founders – considering the travesty of the Obergefell decision.

Now we likely know why Trump also called Obergefell “settled law” in response to a question during a 60 Minutes interview. He had likely been talking to Gorsuch.

Justice Scalia had ripped the Obergefell decision to shreds for its inventions of nonexistent rights out of thin air, as he did with many other judicial activist decisions by his peers on the court and in lower courts. He described the decision as the “furthest imaginable extension of the Supreme Court doing whatever it wants.” He added, “Do you really want your judges to rewrite the Constitution? I don’t know how you can get more extreme than that.”

Scalia even went so far as to argue that legalizing same-sex marriage was a “threat to American democracy.”

It is understandable that Gorsuch would be circumspect during his confirmation hearings in response to questions about particular cases, but he has seemed to exhibit a pro-judicial arrogance, deferring too much to the reputations and status of justices who in very many cases in these times do not at all deserve such deference. They deserve harsh criticism, if not condemnation and censure.

I was taken aback by Gorsuch’s publicly expressed dismay over Donald Trump’s legitimate criticisms of the first court ruling that rejected his immigration Executive Order.

Trump accused the appellate court of being “so political.” He labeled a judge who ruled on his executive order a “so-called judge” and referred to the ruling as “ridiculous.”

Perhaps Trump should not have used the term “so-called judge,” but the ruling was indeed “ridiculous” and totally out of order. It clearly violated presidential privilege and was a raw abuse of the powers of the court for partisan and ideological intentions.

It was about time someone in high authority called judicial activist justices to account. They have been destroying the rule of law in America and trashing the Constitution. They have far overstepped their Constitutional authority.

Gorsuch told a senator that the president’s comments were “demoralizing and disheartening.” Did he really have to go that far? Why could he not have acknowledged that yes, there have been many very questionable rulings by activist judges in recent decades?

The Washington Post wrote that “Gorsuch ‘stated very emotionally and strongly his belief in his fellow judges’ integrity and the principle of judicial independence.”’ Really? All judges, given the many outrageous decisions we have seen?

Justice Scalia never held back and had no regard for popular opinions, political correctness or what the other justices thought about him. As well, his solid Catholic Christian formation gave him a clear vision about right and wrong and his serious duty to the American people to honor the Constitution and the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

Gorsuch’s comment that Obergefell “is absolutely settled law” was insulting to judicial conservatives. I would go so far to say it indicated clear danger about how he would rule on the court – on certain issues.

* * *

There have also been other signs about Gorsuch that too many have tended to pooh-pooh as being significant. Well, they are important signs.

A Feb. 11 New York Times article indicated that Gorsuch is pro-homosexual.

In the LifeSite article on the Times report, we noted,

“in his personal relationships with homosexual friends and co-workers, Judge Gorsuch has been very approving of homosexual relationships.”

Gorsuch also attends a socially liberal Episcopal church in Boulder, led by a pro-LGBT female pastor, Rev. Jill Springer, who reportedly supports homosexual “marriage.”

There is no way that Justice Scalia was approving of homosexual relationships. He would never have regularly attended such a liberal Church as Gorsuch has and Scalia would have run from a parish with a pro-LGBT pastor who supports homosexual “marriage”.

Scalia, from his orthodox Catholic Christian formation and affiliation, clearly new right from wrong and was always outspoken about such matters when circumstances demanded it. He did not deprive those who needed to hear uncomfortable truths from the charity of those truths.

The LifeSite article on the NY Times report continued that,

… Gorsuch reacted when his close friend and former Harvard classmate Phil Berg told him that he had a “boyfriend.”

“He [Gorsuch] didn’t skip a beat,” Berg said, saying that the conversation led to a “special bond” between he and Gorsuch. “It was a huge deal for me, and it made a lasting impression.”

Similarly, the Harvard Crimson reports that Gorsuch offered Harvard classmate Berg “unwavering support” when Berg “came out” to him as homosexual.


Along the same lines, Joshua Goodbaum, a former clerk to Gorsuch, told the Times that his boss was “thrilled” for him and his “husband” when they got same-sex-“married” in 2014:

“He was actually kind of syrupy about it. I remember him saying, ‘You’re going to see how wonderful this is for your relationship,’’’ Goodbaum said.
No authentic, believing Christian would ever offer such affirmation to someone engaged in behavior that threatened severe emotional, psychological, and physical harm, and especially devastating spiritual harm.

I cannot remotely fathom Justice Antonin Scalia ever having been so blind to his sacred responsibility to his fellow man as Neil Gorsuch appeared to exhibit (if these quotes are true) in response to his friends with same-sex attractions.

I hope I am wrong about Gorsuch, but the things noted here cannot be ignored.

We must continue to pray for the best outcome for the next justice of the Supreme Court. May God’s will be done on this because the immediate future of the United States depends on it.

Get AQ Email Updates

9 comments on “Neil Gorsuch is NOT another Scalia

  1. This should not be surprising, Gorsuch may well turn out not to be a Scalia. And, let’s be honest, even Scalia, while he had some good opinions/decisions, was functioning from a decidedly non-Catholic, if not anti-Catholic, framework that had no natural law restraints upon what the people could pass and legislate. Scalia said clearly he would accept whatever came down the pike, including abortion and sodomical marriage, so long as it was done according to a masonic constitution and with due respect for “states’ rights” without federal overreach.

  2. Bluntly put, while fortuitous that, last November, The Donald prevented a beer hall putsch by Hitlery, on the cultural side little else from him can be expected forthwith.

    Yesterday was nothing short of an outright manifestation of the myopic vision of so-called “conservatives” and it only steepened and greased the cliff ahead of this White House.

    My brief, brittle confidence in Trump & Bannon, who DID go to the wall to force the numbskulls in the GOP to at the very least make a FIRST step in unwinding eight years of ObaMao economic/cultural terrorism, is in suspended animation now.

    Buchanan 2020. Make CHISTIAN CIVILIZATION great again!

    Electoral glee has a downside.

    Welcome to it.

    Oh, and Gorsuch may make it onto the Court but it won’t make one bit of difference.

  3. [Sed contra]

    Gorsuch Shows Himself a Worthy Successor to Scalia

    by Derek Ganzhorn • ChurchMilitant • March 27, 2017

    Pessimism over the presumed Supreme Court justice is unfounded

    The confirmation hearings are complete, and the man nominated by President Trump to help roll back Roe v. Wade made it through without major incident. Yet after four days of Neil Gorsuch’s originalist bona fides on display, some Catholics are expressing pessimism over the man who will most likely be confirmed to the Supreme Court next month.

    Pessimism is never foolish in such a context. After all, similar hearings gave us the likes of Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, who not only failed to counter the Court’s illegitimately gotten power, but helped to extend its perverse limits. But in the case of Gorsuch, there is good reason to believe such pessimism is unfounded.

    While much of the Colorado jurist’s personal opinions remain an enigma, we know enough about his jurisprudence to believe that Gorsuch is likely to carry on the project of his predecessor Antonin Scalia, and roll back the major social changes the Court has imposed on the country.

    Cynics are pointing to some of Gorsuch’s phraseology during the confirmation hearings. Questioned about abortion, Gorsuch replied, “The Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment. That is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land.”

    Gorsuch took a similar tack with regard to Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage, telling senators it “is absolutely settled law.”

    Should Gorsuch’s statements that these contentious decisions are the “law of the land” and “absolutely settled law” cause worry among Catholics?

    No. As abhorrent as these decisions may be, Gorsuch is merely stating indisputable fact. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and when the Court makes its decisions, it is settling any disputes about the law. Unless we are willing to turn back 200 years of precedent, the Court’s holdings are indeed the law of the land, and Gorsuch is merely rehearsing the basics of constitutional law in stating this.

    On the contrary, if Gorsuch were to deny these decisions were law, he would call into question his own competency and his ability to be effective as a justice. Why would any senator vote for a justice who does not believe in his own power to affect the law?

    Others have pointed to Gorsuch’s seeming equivocation on his belief in a right to life.

    Asked in an exchange with Louisiana Republican John Kennedy whether his opposition to assisted suicide was correct, Gorsuch claimed, “I might be right and I might be wrong.” This self-deprecation must be seen in light of the fact that Gorsuch was trying to divorce his academic, polemical self from his role as judge, which must be impartial. Assisted suicide is the one political issue that Gorsuch has taken a clear, unambiguous stand on, and his statement is an assertion that, as a judge, he will keep an open mind on all topics, even his own work.

    Does his answer suggest he is reneging on his pro-life beliefs? Unlikely. Gorsuch’s book was years in the making, and shows depth and sincerity of thought. If he is deceiving us on his pro-life views, his deceit has endured for years, and he is truly one of the greatest prevaricators in American history.

    More enlightening than anything Gorsuch said is what the nominee failed to say in the hearings.

    Gorsuch was asked Tuesday for his opinion on Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that declared a right to contraceptive use within marriage. Gorsuch referred to precedent, again calling Griswold the “law of the land,” aoting that the opinion had been re-affirmed by courts countless times, and that if a state were to claim it could make contraceptive use illegal once again, “I can’t imagine the Supreme Court of the United States taking that claim seriously.”

    But note what Gorsuch did not say: that the legal foundation behind the case was correct. Remember that the legal claim made in Griswold is that contraceptive use is a right protected by the Constitution. No one who wrote the Constitution ever intended to include anything about contraception in it, and no reasonable person could read the document and think they had. Yet the justices who wrote the 1965 opinion made that legal claim anyway. Gorsuch’s non-response suggests he is aware how weak this reasoning was and is. His failure to endorse it resounds as loudly as anything he actually said during the hearings.

    Compare Gorsuch’s answer to his predecessors’ during their confirmation hearings:

    Catholic John Roberts said about Griswold: “Absolutely, I agree, there’s a right to marital privacy, and I agree with Griswold.”

    Catholic Samuel Alito in reference to Eisenstadt v. Baird, the case that extended a right to artificial birth control to single people, said: “I do agree also with the result in Eisenstadt.”

    It’s unclear if these men abide by their duties as Catholics to personally condemn contraception. But it is clear they have betrayed their duties as justices in claiming a nonexistent right to contraception in the Constitution.

    We don’t know what Episcopalian Neil Gorsuch personally believes about the morality of contraception. But as Gorsuch emphasized again and again in his hearings — and we have no reason but speculation to disbelieve him — his personal opinions are immaterial when interpreting the law. And in interpreting the law, Gorsuch is committed to the commonsense approach of reading the Constitution based on what it actually says.

    To put the matter another way: Why would Gorsuch otherwise not commit to supporting contraception? His own religion does not preclude him from doing so. Republicans are too craven to make contraception an issue, and his support might pick up a Democrat or two and ensure his appointment. Years in academia and the judiciary have undoubtedly given Gorsuch many opportunities to compromise his principles, and to find weasel words and philistinism that allow him to claim the Constitution contains a right to contraception. Despite all these pressures, Gorsuch has not succumbed.

    It takes both intellectual honesty and moral courage not to give in to such a specious right, and Gorsuch has shown these qualities. This is more than can be said for Catholics on the Court, who in recognizing that fictitious right render unto Caesar what Caesar has never asked of them.

    There is a great difference between accepting a ruling and accepting the logic behind the ruling. Gorsuch displays little sign of accepting the logic behind the Court’s worst decisions. This is why Catholics should be guardedly optimistic about a Justice Gorsuch. It is true that we don’t accurately know his opinion on a host of social issues. But if Gorsuch is true to his judicial principles, his personal views are irrelevant.

    If we are wrong, and Gorsuch does turn out to be a Souter-like squish, it will be owing to his great deception, not our moderate hopes.

  4. Whether it’s a traffic court administrative law “judge” or a member of the SCOTUS, any deviation from the Natural Law (which is implicit even in the original founding documents of the American Republic) OUGHT TO BE beyond the machinations of some independent notionality, ideological leaning, or caprice by one judge or an entire bench.

    “Ought” is no longer determinative today, unfortunately. The power to impose dictates.

    Absent any pleasant surprises from the SCOTUS since Griswold, the only trajectory one can expect is downward. Even Scalia would have agreed with that assessment.

  5. Is Gorsuch [another] “stealth nominee”?

    By Cliff Kincaid

    When the first President Bush nominated David Souter for a seat on the Supreme Court, the nominee was sold to conservatives as a fellow conservative but turned out to be a solid member of the court’s liberal bloc. As such, Souter was labeled a “stealth nominee” to advance the liberal agenda. Could Judge Neil Gorsuch be another Souter?

    On the surface, such a question seems absurd. Gorsuch was selected by President Donald Trump from a list of 21 “conservative” nominees assembled by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, two respected conservative groups.

    Like most conservatives, inside-the-beltway operative Matt Schlapp of the American Conservative Union fell in line behind the nominee. He called Gorsuch “a reliable defender of the Constitutional rights of every American” and a “self-described originalist who seeks to interpret the Constitution as the Founders intended.” Dr. Robert George of Princeton University said, “In selecting Gorsuch, President Trump has without question fulfilled his pledge to appoint a justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia – a conservative intellectual leader.”

    But the hearings on Gorsuch’s nomination did produce controversial comments suggesting that, like Souter, he could turn out to be a member of the court’s liberal bloc on issues like gay marriage, abortion, and even gun rights.

    Pro-life activist Mark Harrington of Created Equal said that he was troubled by the testimony Gorsuch gave during his confirmation hearings on abortion and homosexuality. “Words mean things,” he told AIM. He said “people weren’t listening or watching” if they missed the significance of these remarks by the nominee. In his opinion, he said it appears that Gorsuch “values precedent over the Constitution” given his remarks on abortion and gay marriage.

    As the Constitution and history demonstrate, there were no abortion or gay marriage “rights” at the time of America’s founding. Those “rights” didn’t exist in America’s founding documents. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence affirmed, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

    A product of elite liberal colleges and universities, Gorsuch strongly indicated during his confirmation hearings that the “rights” which now exist are those imposed on the nation by the Supreme Court. He attended Harvard Law School with former President Barack Obama, notes Politico.

    At the same time, he expresses support for the right to life in his book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. He is also considered a strong supporter of religious freedom rights.

    While many conservative groups have endorsed Gorsuch, and liberal groups have opposed him, some reporters of a conservative bent have taken the time to follow the hearings and comment on what Gorsuch actually said. For example, Steve Jalsevac of LifeSiteNews analyzed his statements and observed, “…this man is NOT, as Trump has repeatedly been told, another Scalia,” the conservative justice who passed away last year and whose seat Gorsuch would fill.

    Paul Bremmer of WorldNetDaily notes that Gorsuch, during his confirmation hearings, labeled as the “law of the land” or “settled law” the rulings on “unlimited abortion” and homosexual marriage.

    Indeed, Gorsuch called the Supreme Court’s pro-abortion ruling, Roe v. Wade, “the law of the land,” and added, “I accept the law of the land.” That ruling led to the legalization of abortion on demand across the country, striking down state laws protecting the rights of the unborn.

    His exact words were, “I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed…So a good judge will consider as precedent of the United States Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

    “To me,” wrote Jalsevac, “there was something unnerving about how far he went in accepting the current realities of that horrendous decision that was based on lies and deliberate misinterpretation of the Constitution.”

    Gorsuch called the same-sex “marriage” Obergefell v. Hodges ruling imposed on the states “absolutely settled law.” Jalsevac said, “That comment seemed to indicate Gorsuch is not a full constitutional originalist. No originalist would ever make such a comment that appears to betray the Constitution and the intentions of the Founders – considering the travesty of the Obergefell decision.”

    Pro-life activist Mark Harrington told AIM that while the nominee’s statements were troubling, his remarks on homosexual marriage being “absolutely settled law,” based on a ruling made only eighteen months ago, were even more incomprehensible.

    Scalia, a real “constitutional originalist,” had called the Court’s gay marriage decision a judicial “Putsch.” By that, he meant that the court had overthrown our democratic Republican form of government by creating rights that didn’t exist in the Constitution and which the people in all 50 states had not voted for.

    In other little-noticed comments that emerged after the nomination was made or during the hearings, Gorsuch’s former law clerk, John Goodbaum, said Gorsuch was personally supportive of his “gay marriage,” while Gorsuch’s pastor, Susan Springer, was reported to have “proudly” attended the anti-Trump Women’s March in Denver, Colorado. The church he attends is “notably liberal,” The Washington Post reported. Reverend Springer is reported to be in favor of gay marriage and offers blessings to same-sex couples.

    Mark Harrington of Created Equal had warned conservatives before the hearings to engage in “extreme vetting” of the nominee, and has since concluded that he can’t support Gorsuch.

    He reminded conservatives, “President Reagan gave us Justice Kennedy. George H.W. Bush gave us Justice Souter. George W. Bush gave us Justice Roberts.”

    History shows that Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the ruling legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the United States, while Chief Justice John Roberts gave us Supreme Court approval of Obamacare.

    In the case of Souter, while many conservatives were fooled by White House assurances that he was a true conservative, the late conservative activist Howard Phillips had warned of Souter’s pro-abortion record and predicted he was going to be liberal on other social issues.

    “We can’t get this one wrong,” Harrington said, referring to the pick of Scalia’s replacement. “We have no margin of error. Getting it wrong condemns millions of preborn children to death. This time around, we will trust but verify.”

    Despite Gorsuch’s controversial remarks in his confirmation hearings, conservative activist Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network told CBS News that she is confident Gorsuch won’t be another Souter. Her group launched a $10 million campaign to support Gorsuch.

    Some other columnists who have examined the record are not so sure. While Gorsuch “appears to have everything conservatives would want in a Supreme Court nominee,” New York Daily News columnist Adam Edelman notes that “there is a very thin paper trail when it comes to Gorsuch’s judicial rulings on key conservative issues like abortion and gun rights.”

    In addition to the Souter case, Anthony Kennedy “had been seen by conservatives as a reliably right-leaning justice,” but over time came to be associated “with the court’s liberal bloc, becoming a critical swing vote on dozens of momentous decisions,” Edelman points out.

    Gorsuch worked as a law clerk for Kennedy in the early 1990s. In his opening statement for his confirmation hearings, he said he “had the great fortune to clerk for Justice Kennedy” and that Kennedy “showed me that judges can disagree without being disagreeable.”

    “Justice Scalia was a mentor, too,” Gorsuch said. “He reminded us that words matter. That the judge’s job is to follow the words that are in the law, not replace them with those that aren’t.”

    But the words he uttered at the hearings about preserving the “rights” that have been made up by a liberal Supreme Court will continue to raise questions about whether he is a “Scalia clone,” as some liberals charge.

  6. As I have said before, there is Law and Precedent before the rulings of the Supreme Court of the US Indeed, the real “Supreme Court” is the Court of Heaven and the first Laws and Precedents are found in Divine Law and the Natural Law. If Neil Gorsuch refuses to consider these Laws and the Precedents attached thereto, not only is he not a conservative; he is an idiot. His answers during the nomination hearings were designed, it seemed to me, more to put the questioners off-guard rather than to tell the truth.

  7. I “hope” you’re right, Colonel. The likelihood he’ll be on the Court by midnight this coming Friday, if McConnell invokes the nuclear option, seem strongly in his favor.

    Then. We’ll. See. ( I am not optimistic. )

    The “voting precedent” among GOP nominees has been a total disaster for decades.

    Only surpassed, of course, by the unimaginably repulsive feminazis imposed by earlier Dem prez’s,

    • The Divine Law is quoted from the Book of Exodus, Chapter 20. verses 7-13 and is as clear as clear can be: “[11] For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. [12] Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be long-lived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee. [13] Thou shalt not kill. [14] Thou shalt not commit adultery. [15] Thou shalt not steal. [16] Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. [17] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’ s house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.” Now, that’s the Law and the [precedent is shown just as clearly when Abraham was about to sacrifice his son Isaac and the Lord said: “11] And behold an angel of the Lord from heaven called to him, saying: Abraham, Abraham. And he answered: Here I am. [12] And he said to him: Lay not thy hand upon the boy, neither do thou any thing to him: now I know that thou fearest God, and hast not spared thy only begotten son for my sake.” And so the Lord knew the faith of Abraham and the innocence of his son, Isaac,and stopped what was even a sacrifice to Him. The rule was indeed set: innocent life thou shall not take even for such a lofty purpose. How many innocent lives have been taken by the abortion industry in this country with the complicity of so-called Catholics and Christians?

      I doubt that Neil Gorsuch will follow the Divine Law and Precedent even if he is confirmed as an Associate Justice of the IS Supreme Court. I hope to God that I’m wrong.

Leave a Reply