U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE NEIL GORSUCH: “A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON” UNDER THE LAW~BUT IT IS UNDER GOD’S LAW
HOW CAN AMERICA APPROVE SOMEONE WITH A SEARED CONSCIENCE, AND NOT INCUR
THE WRATH OF GOD?
Matthew 7:21-23: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many
will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your
name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your
name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
ST. JOHN’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, BOULDER, COLORADO
and Stare Decisis
also clings to bad precedent, and is an extreme supporter of stare
decisis, both of which are excuses for upholding Roe v. Wade rather
than overturning it. “Our duty to follow precedent sometimes requires
us to make mistakes,” Gorsuch declared in ruling against the Second
Amendment rights of a man before his court. United
States v. Games-Perez, 667 F.3d 1136, 1142 (10th Cir. 2012) (Gorsuch,
J. concurring).
is stare decisis? It is Latin for “to stand by things decided,”
and is the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an
issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued.
Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not
universally true. See, e.g. Planned
Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833. The
doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis
refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. A court engages in vertical
stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court. Consequently,
stare decisis discourages litigating established precedents.
courts seldom overrule precedent, Justice Rehnquist explained that stare
decisis is not an “inexorable
command.” On occasion, the Court will decide not to apply the
doctrine if a prior decision is deemed unworkable.
In addition, significant societal changes may also prompt the Court to
overrule
precedent; however, any decision
to overrule precedent is exercised cautiously. (Cornell
University Law School)”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
WASHINGTON — During his second day of questioning for his Senate confirmation hearing, Trump U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch said that he accepts Roe v. Wade as the “law of the land” and its opinion that a “fetus is not a person.”
On Wednesday, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked Gorsuch about a
sentence in his book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” in
which he concluded that “[a]ll human beings are intrinsically valuable,
and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always
wrong.”
“How could you square that statement with legal abortion?” Durbin inquired.
Gorsuch, currently a judge with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals,
posited that abortion is different because the unborn are not legally
recognized as people.
“Senator, as the book explains, 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—and that book explains that,” Gorsuch
replied.
“Do you accept that?” Durbin asked.
“That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, Senator, yes,” Gorsuch answered firmly.
As previously reported,
on Tuesday, Gorsuch told Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck
Grassley that he believes Roe v. Wade is precedent and has been
repeatedly reaffirmed, and that “a good judge” should treat it
accordingly.
“I think the case most people are thinking about right now and the
case that every nominee gets asked about [is] Roe v. Wade. Can you tell
me whether Roe was decided correctly?” Grassley asked.
“Senator, … I would tell you that Roe versus Wade, decided in 1973,
is the precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been
reaffirmed,” Gorsuch replied emphatically. “The reliance interest
considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go
into analyzing precedent have to be considered.”
“It is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It was
reaffirmed in Casey in 1992, and in several other cases,” he repeated.
“So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States
Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”
When asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to expound on his
views regarding precedent, he explained that “once a case is settled,
that adds to the determinacy of the law.”
“What was once a hotly contested issue is no longer a hotly contested issue. We move forward,” Gorsuch said.
Feinstein then inquired if he considers Roe v. Wade to be
“super-precedent,” meaning that it is so ingrained into the legal system
that it would be significantly difficult to overturn.
“It has been reaffirmed 44 times. I can say that,” Gorsuch, known for
ruling in favor of the popular craft chain Hobby Lobby, replied.
Hoefling
While
some have stated that Gorsuch had to answer in such a manner in order
to be confirmed, 2016 America’s Party presidential candidate Tom
Hoefling wrote on social media on Thursday that those who claim the name
of Christ should proclaim truth no matter the cost.
“The way I look at it, no job is worth having for which you have to
hitch your wagon to genocide, and dehumanize tens of millions of
innocent little boys and girls, and defy God and nature and the
Constitution, and support a coup d’etat by pretending that we live in a
judicial oligarchy instead of in a free constitutional republic,” he
said.
Hoefling pointed to Christ’s words in Mark 8:36, “For what shall it
profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?”
“A wink and a nod for the continued mass murder of millions, tens of
millions, of little boys and girls is required for confirmation,”
he lamented. “A wink and a nod for the continued destruction of the
natural family, the way God created it, is now required.”
“The founders of this republic wouldn’t recognize what these people
have created,” Hoefling added. “It’s a national disgrace. And it is
going to destroy us, and our posterity, if we don’t combat and defeat
it.”
As previously reported, Gorsuch
is an Episcopalian, and attends St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder,
Colorado. St. John’s identifies itself as “inclusive” on its website
and is led by female minister Susan Springer. In 2013, Springer
expressed her support for same-sex “marriage.”
Many Christians stated that their primary reason for voting for Trump
as president was because they believed he would appoint justices that
would overturn Roe v. Wade. Some had remarked that they desired a judge
similar to the late Antonin Scalia.
Scalia, however, noted during his tenure that he opposed both the
complete abolition of abortion, as well as requiring legalization. He
said that the Constitution does not require a state to ban abortion as
he believes the 14th Amendment only applies to those who have been born.
“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.”
campaign that he would put people on the Supreme Court that would
overrule Roe V. Wade and give abortion rights to the states. Sen.
Lindsey Graham (R-SC.) asked Gorsuch if Trump asked Gorsuch if he would
overturn Roe V. Wade.