Wednesday, February 1, 2017


Wow! Talk about one for the good-move side of the ledger!

Gorsuch is best known nationally for taking the side of religious organizations that opposed parts of the Affordable Care Act that compelled coverage of contraceptives. In one of those cases, Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Stores, he wrote of the need for U.S. courts to give broad latitude to religious beliefs.
“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 noted in a concurring opinion.
The Supreme Court later ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, which now is not required to subsidize birth control that it finds objectionable.
Gorsuch also has written against euthanasia and assisted suicide, the latter of which Colorado legalized last November. “All human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong,” he wrote in his 2006 book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.”
Gorsuch’s published works show conservative leanings. In a 2005 article in the National Review, Gorsuch argued that “American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda.”
Whatever else is going on, this is the key reason why this nation was blessed last November 8.


  1. No problem if he reasons his arguments impeccably, and he does what he is supposed to do: interpret the Constitution of the United States. Personal opinions have no place in this. I'm all for ending legal abortion, but his arguments must be reasoned well. And, if they're not I guess we're fucked. Trump just had to break precedent again and make his nomination a big media spectacle. You know that's never been done by any president before, submit a Supreme Court nominee to such fanfare. I tell ya, your side is setting yourselves up for a mighty mighty fall when you ram your "Christian" agenda up ours. Rammed by a man who demonstrates little Christianity in his life. This messenger can't possibly be Heaven-sent like some of you fundies believe. A devil in the driver's seat for Christian principles? Gimme a break!

  2. You completely misread where true conservatives are coming from. We are minimally interested - at this point - in SH's faith life or lack thereof. What we are interested in is a solidly Constitutional Supreme Court - peopled, yes. with Christians. SH seems to know that's what he should deliver.

  3. Peopled with Christians should not be a consideration, but I'll go with outstanding legal scholars with the ability and track record for crafting the most reasoned of opinions on matters. He or she must stand on stare decisis; that's the way we always have rolled here's. You have no right, even under a demon president, to insist upon Christianity as a qualification. That's coming from me, a Christian, as I think you realize.

  4. In a land where many still value diversity and whose constitution guarantees freedom of religion, your insistence on a court peopled with Christians is in itself unconstitutional.

  5. I do note that our current vile President promised to totally destroy 1954's Johnson Amendment. So continue to show both our citizens and the world your continued comtempt for stare decisis. Everything is gonna be a battle. What a bunch of sorry tyrannists your ilk is. Tromping on individual freedoms! Absurd!

  6. O don't insist on Christianity as a qualification. I merely assert that it is a good trait in judges.

  7. Oh, I must have misread what u said up there on 2/1/17 at 220 pm