SETTLED LAW: Right Wingers Fret About Neil Gorsuch’s Statements On Abortion And Same-Sex Marriage

Via World Net Daily:

Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at Conservative Review, is not the least bit confident Gorsuch is the constitutional conservative many Republicans are hoping for.

“Gorsuch is saying that Roe is the law of the land and Obergefell, which is one of the most radical opinions ever, is ‘absolutely settled law,’” Horowitz told WND. “There’s nothing there to give us assurances that he’s anywhere on par with Scalia, and that’s the seat we’re filling.”

He acknowledged the possibility Gorsuch could be a “stealth conservative” like Clarence Thomas, but he noted Republican presidents have a very poor track record in the past 50 years of picking conservative Supreme Court justices.

Part of the reason, according to Horowitz, is that Republican nominees rarely assure the public of where they stand on controversial issues during their confirmation hearings, whereas Democratic nominees usually affirm their liberal orthodoxy during their hearings.

Indeed, Gorsuch spent much of his hearing concealing his personal opinions on hot-button issues, believing a statement of belief now would impede his impartiality in future cases.

  • Natty Enquirer

    Stare decisis, motherf*ckers.

  • DaddyRay

    Come on, even Democrats know this is all just blowing smoke just so he gets confirmed

    • Agreed Neil is playing it cool waiting to be confirmed…he oozes slime!!!

      • JT

        Just like Alito and Roberts before him.

        • Bettyemcollie

          Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj68d:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          !mj68d:
          ➽➽
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash68MediaTalkGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj68d:….,…

    • bkmn

      It’s just a way to trick the morans into donating more money to the fraudsters.

    • Xiao Ai: The Social Gadfly

      Right, and World Nutz is attempting to deflect that as an obvious assumption to make it easier to reach confirmation. Nothing more, nothing less. This is the Putin Process.

    • dcurlee

      My thoughts exactly

    • Lawerence Collins

      Yet, Dino’s like Manchin. Are all for him.

    • fuow

      Yup, ‘settled law’ only counts when it’s good for the ultra-far-right conservative christians.

  • BearEyes

    just lying through the hearings to take Merrick Garland’s stolen seat.

    • (((GC)))

      That bears repeating over and over.
      It’s Merrick Garland’s STOLEN SEAT.
      It’s Merrick Garland’s STOLEN SEAT.
      It’s Merrick Garland’s STOLEN SEAT!

  • Silver Badger

    Well Gee Whiz! What kind of conservative can he be if he doesn’t let his own hate take precedence to the Constitution?

    • cleos_mom

      The kind of conservative that’s been standard-issue since the early 1980s.

  • another_steve

    Hard to believe that given the enthusiastic support for him by most on the theofascist right, Gorsuch is other than a Scalia clone. Though I have read some analysis on the part of some legal scholars to the effect that he might not be as bad as progressives fear — at least in some areas.

    • BearEyes

      which areas are they indicating? – since he does seem to be an ideologue – he loves so-called ‘religious liberty’

      • another_steve

        I personally think progressives are fucked when it comes to the “religious liberty” argument. It’s very very difficult to convince the average American that something called “religious liberty” is an evil thing.

        The monsters on the right know that, which is why they’re running with it.

        • Ninja0980

          Sad to say but that is why we needed Hillary to win so she appoint judges who would stop that argument.
          She didn’t and I sadly see many of these laws being upheld now.

          • another_steve

            Though I can’t quite fathom how the Supreme Court could theoretically craft a decision that says, “Okay, Mr. and Mrs. Bakery Cake Makers — it’s okay to deny a same-sex married couple a cake on religious grounds, but not okay to deny an interracial opposite-sex married couple a cake on religious grounds.”

            Aside from employing raw animus against queer people (which monsters like Clarence Thomas would be only too happy to do), I don’t know how they craft such a decision.

        • Gustav2

          All you have to do is explain is “religious liberty” means they get to tell you how to live your life.

          • another_steve

            Problem is, the vast majority of “they” are either religious themselves or hold quasi-religious/spiritual beliefs.

            I realize that most commenters here on JMG are staunch atheists (I consider myself an Apathetic Agnostic), but for better or worse, most Americans are not.

          • Gustav2

            Well, just tell them no beer sales on Sunday!

          • another_steve

            Lol.

            When the Second Coming of Jesus Christ arrives, the next morning there will still be three things left on Planet Earth: beer, Sunday afternoon football, and Viagra.

    • Gustav2

      Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia!

    • Friday

      Of course the theofascist Right is often… Wrong on the facts too, so who knows.

  • Gustav2

    Yeah, right. He is the MOST religiously conservative judge ever nominated and they are still bitching.

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?425495-1/benedict-option

  • Ninja0980

    Thomas and Alito have made it clear they don’t considered this settled law and would over turn this in a heartbeat.
    And as we saw with John Roberts and the Voting Rights Act, actions speak louder then words.
    I wouldn’t trust this POS to not overturn equality as far as I can throw him.

    • Christian1234567

      Gorsuch has already said the scope of the Obergefell ruling is not settled. He said this in the confirmation hearings. What this means is that he will work to chip away at rights for same-sex couples.

      • nonsense! There is no evidence whatsoever of your claim. Gorsuch has revealed himself as a leftist judge and should not be confirmed.

        • prixator

          Wow. “cristoiglesia” (christ church).

          What could you possibly be doing on a LGBT blog?

          • Since when is this an LGBT blog?

          • NancyP

            Er, take a look at the ads, and if you don’t have the sense to figure out that the ads are for Pride parties and the like, go take a peek at some of the posted photos on the comments.

          • prixator

            From the home page:

            “Gay culture, short stories, politics, and fabulous disco trivia.”

  • SnowFlake

    He wife looks pure evil right-wing trash.

    • BearEyes

      that cold, calculating look speaks volumes.

  • Gay Fordham Prep Grad

    I don’t think Gorsuch is the candidate we should force the abandonment of the filibuster rule over. He is right wing and not any of our choices, but he’s qualified and he should get at least 8 Dem votes. There are three more potentially open seats coming down the pike (and they can open at any time as Nino showed us) and we have to keep our powder dry for those battles. (Imagine replacing RBG with Michelle Bachman).

    • Gustav2

      The only way Trump can be reelected is if he panders to the religious right with the judges.

    • Ninja0980

      Here’s the problem though.
      What’s to stop Republicans from doing the nuclear option on future seats?
      If they have a chance to turn SCOTUS conservative for another 30-40 years ala Marshall to Thomas, they’ll do it in a heartbeat.

    • DaddyRay

      The GOP will not hesitate to invoke the Nuclear option – I say make them and let them own it.

    • another_steve

      It’s moot. Trump has already urged the Republicans to employ the “Nuclear Option” to get Gorsuch confirmed.

      Can anyone give me a good reason they won’t do that?

      • Christian1234567

        Gorsuch will be confirmed, though I am still contacting senators in an attempt to get them to see reason. I will know I did all I could.

    • Tiger Quinn

      Boy, how quickly we sell ourselves out.

    • Rebecca Gardner

      Bachmann is a level of stupid I cannot wrap my mind around, but if she was a Justice we’d all be fucked because she’s dumber than a sack of hammers. Gee, I wonder how should would rule on important issues?

      ”Not all cultures are equal.”

      “I just take the Bible for what it is, I guess, and recognize that I am not a scientist, not trained to be a scientist. I’m not a deep thinker on all of this. I wish I was. I wish I was more knowledgeable, but I’m not a scientist.”

      ”And what a bizarre time we’re in, when a judge will say to little children that you can’t say the pledge of allegiance, but you must learn that homosexuality is normal and you should try it.”

      ”I don’t know where they’re going to get all this money because we’re running out of rich people in this country.”

      “Lady Liberty and Sarah Palin are lit by the same torch.”

  • Do Something Nice

    This is interesting. Maybe, like healthcare, this nomination can be throttled by pressure from the right and the left.

    • Tiger Quinn

      And yet again it will be because he’s not awful enough, just as the AHCA wasn’t awful enough. Someday Republicans will learn not to listen to their craziest members, but it won’t be this day.

  • Friday

    “Stealth conservative:” Like it’s somehow admirable to be in some office by concealing whether or not one is qualified, desired to represent the people, or of good will about the job even. Typical conservative dishonesty.

  • bkmn

    Their unease is no excuse for us to think things are good.

  • ByronK

    The real reason Conservatives end up disappointed with their SC picks is because they follow the law.

  • Ninja0980

    http://www.golocalprov.com/news/aclu/
    If one wants to see the damage Gorsuch and the other conservatives can do to marriage equality without overturning it, look no further then to Rhode Island and their joke of a civil union law.
    By the time the religious bigots had gotten done with it, the civil unions weren’t worth the paper they were printed on.
    Alito, Thomas and other bigots aim to make marriage equality the same thing.

  • Tiger Quinn

    It might also be that most judges are actual judges, and the rabid fuck-the-Constitution type that the right wingers want literally died with Scalia. Which is not to deny that Gorusch and his answers were entirely creepy as fuck.

  • Richard B

    The wingnuts at WND fret too much and are anxious.
    Neil Gorsuch was nominated by the Catholics at Heritage and was strongly endorsed by the loathsome cretins at the Family Research Counsel and the dumbbell that run the National Organization for Marriage. It would be a mistake to think our opponents didn’t do their homework when they recommended Gorsuch. As an appellate judge, Gorsuch gave us the Hobby Lobby decision. He was specifically nominated to bring about a SCOTUS decision for the religious liberty crowd.
    We must ensure this man does not get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

    • karen in kalifornia

      Gorsuch is deemed more presentable to the press and public by the Heritage Fd and FRC then say Judge Pryor. Not that Pryor is worst, just that he’s on record as being worst.

      • (((GC)))

        I’ve told my Senators that Gorsuch’s record is actually irrelevant. They should deny a floor vote, USE THE FILIBUSTER, and do everything possible to block ANY nomination other than Merrick Garland for this STOLEN SEAT.

      • juanjo54

        Pryor was a great gay for pay model in his younger days in college. Other than that he is an idiot and buffoon.

  • Michael R

    Like he can’t get himself on the Supreme Court and ” unsettle ” the law

    https://s21.postimg.org/myssshzmv/clever_girl.gif

  • Lazycrockett
    • Beagle

      Stunts like that show that Dump isn’t ready for public access at 3 in the morning.

    • lymis

      Germany hasn’t paid what they agreed to contribute, but they’re not behind on any actual bills.

      But I wouldn’t expect Trump, who never pays any of his bills, to understand the distinction. It’s pretty rich for Trump to complain about anyone not paying their bills.

      • prixator

        Canada doesn’t spend 2% of GDP on defense, either. I wonder why didn’t Dumpo also hand Trudeau a bill when they recently met in D.C.? Wadda Nidiot!

  • HZ81

    In short: Gorsuch isn’t loony enough for some on the right, which is like saying Bozo isn’t clowny enough for the circus.

  • Dramphooey

    “Stealth conservative” = a liar.

  • Publius

    One gay rights group called his answer on Obergefell “chilling.” Yeah, no. I get it, we’re not supposed to like Donald Trump, anything he does, and anyone he chooses to be anything, because Donald Trump, but to be honest there’s nothing particularly repulsive about Judge Gorsuch. Democrats have lost all three branches of government, and so they need to learn to take what they can get. Scalia would never in a trillion years have called Roe and Obergefell settled law, but this guy did. He’s not the unprecedented, extreme, chilling three-headed monster we’re supposed to believe he is. For a Republican, he’s not so bad.

    • BearEyes

      don’t underestimate him. His statement that the “scope” of Obergefell is not settled really does spell big trouble.

      • margaretpoa

        Hear, hear. By saying it’s “scope” is not settled, that could mean that he would force same sex couples to individually battle for their rights to marry through the courts.

    • John Ruff

      You’re being naive

      • Publius

        Collect your up votes. Echo chambers lost this presidential election for Democrats.

        • margaretpoa

          Bullshit. There were many things that lost this Presidential election but comments on blogs were not part of that equation. Echo chambers on the other side helped WIN them the election, based on how many people solely voted for Trump thinking he could overturn Obamacare,.

          • Publius

            No. Democrats being arrogant and unwilling to court votes in areas of this country that the Electoral College requires candidates to court if they wanted to win won this election for Trump. This knee-jerk, self-righteous attitude that overestimates support for progressive causes has put a permanent majority for Republicans in Congress.

            My point is that Trump won. We will have a Republican Supreme Court justice that most Democrats don’t want. That is a fact. Democrats will not get any better than Gorsuch. They need to move on and perhaps start winning elections.

          • margaretpoa

            I agree that Democrats were partly responsible but I disagree that they should fold on Gorsuch. Thanks for your opinion, Mr. Graham.

          • Publius

            I’m surprised it took 10 minutes for someone to call me a Republican. Usually that comes first, like before actually making arguments, if arguments are ever made.

          • margaretpoa

            I’m surprised too, since your first comment sounded exactly like what I’ve been hearing from Republicans.

          • Publius

            Keep telling yourself that. Keep calling people who disagree with you, see things differently, and less apocalyptically Republicans. It obviously wins Democrats elections.

            While you do that I’ll be on the ground actually switching votes and changing minds where it matters.

          • margaretpoa

            Yes, yes, you’re right, I do nothing but sit around hacking out my frustrations on a keyboard.

            You don’t know me or what I’ve done, including donating, campaigning and manning phones, but I think I begin to know you: you’re the arrogant, self righteous liberal who thinks that entitles you to sneer at everybody else who doesn’t agree with your sage words. Sorry. I don’t like liberal self righteousness anymore than conservative self righteousness.

            And this is the end to our lovely conversation today.

          • Publius

            One of us represents a failed electoral strategy for Democrats, and my strategy focuses on actually winning. I want Democrats in Congress, the Supreme Court, and the White House, and in order for that to happen Democrats need to focus where it matters. They need to pick their battles wisely.

          • Michael R

            You’ve made so many fascinating points ,
            what a valuable addition to the conversation !!!

            https://s3.postimg.org/pnntz37rn/lively_discussion_sleeping_puppy.jpg

          • Publius

            Thanks Michael! More puppies 🙂

          • M Jackson

            Wait, do you think you have presented an argument here for allowing a conservative extremist to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court?
            You’re wrong.
            Float further downstream, driftwood.

          • Publius

            Judge Gorsuch is supported by between 45-50% of Americans in polls ranging from Fox News polls to CNN polls. He’s literally not an extremist. Extremism means furthest removed from mainstream, which Gorsuch is not. This, once again, this overestimation of progressive support, proves fatal in elections. We did this unfortunately in California in 2008 when we took California’s views on gays and lesbians for granted and lost Proposition 8. Democrats will continue to lose if they continue to live in alternate realities.

        • John Ruff

          I’m sorry. I don’t speak world salad.

          • Publius

            Sorry for Wrongthink. I will try to obey.

        • Dazzer

          Not really. The Electoral College system lost the Democratic Party the Presidency.

          With a surfeit of 3 million votes over the Republicans, the Democrats actually won a stunning victory in the public vote. In a real democracy, Clinton would be President.

          What you describe as an ‘echo chamber’ was actually and evidently attractive to voters.

          One of the reasons Trump is running into so many difficulties is that people who feel their vote hasn’t been heard are not prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt as he stumbles from one fuck-up to another.

          The Democrats best policy is to continue being a genuine political and philosophical opposition to the ruling power.

          The more they oppose – and the more clearly they make it that they are opposing because they have the true public mandate – the more they will energise their base to continue voting for them.

          If the Democrats fold to the Republicans, they’re simply agreeing with the narrative that there is no difference between the ruling parties.

          • Publius

            Our electoral system was designed to deny the White House to any candidate that failed to attract support from rural areas of this country. The Electoral College worked as it was designed. Congratulations to Hillary Clinton for being elected President of the United Urban Areas of America. Democrats overestimated support for their causes in particular areas, and failed to heed warnings from state party chairs about Clinton’s red and purple state strategies. I wasn’t a huge fan of him, but ask Bernie Sanders on how to do it.

          • SoCalGal20

            Oh you conveniently forget to mention all the gerrymandering (that WI and several other states have been ordered by federal courts to correct) and voter suppression laws in places like WI that are in place to prevent Democrats from being properly represented and voting but thanks for playing!

          • Dazzer

            I point out again, that in a real democracy, Clinton would be president.

            You seem happy with the idea that some people’s votes in your country are worth more than other people’s.

            You can talk about ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ as much as you want, but the Electoral College system is way of instituting inequality in the way America is ruled.

            But that’s all a sideshow, to be honest.

            The fact remains that Democratic political ideas proved to be more popular than Republican.

            If the Democrats don’t hold true to the promises they made to the electorate, they become a faithless party.

            Democrats giving up without a fight is a disasterous policy for them.

    • billbear1961

      “Democrats have lost all three branches of government, and so they need to learn to take what they can get.”

      It is precisely because of attitudes like this that we find ourselves in the current position.

      We’ve just seen what the RESISTANCE can achieve, and with sufficient numbers in the streets and on the phones PROTESTING, that success can and will CONTINUE.

      Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary by almost three MILLION votes, and therefore has NO MANDATE to appoint radical right-wing judges to SCOTUS.

      Any nominee who is not a MODERATE should be BLOCKED.

      If the filibuster is abolished, it is GONE for GOOD. So, McConnell better think TWICE before moving to eliminate it.

      As for losing it, there is no point in possessing a weapon if you are ALWAYS afraid of using it and NEVER DO!!

      FURTHERMORE, Trump’s very legitimacy is very MUCH under a CLOUD; until investigations into his possible collusion with the Russians AND violations of the Emoluments Clause are concluded, nothing as important as the appointment of a SCOTUS judge should move forward–unless the judge to be considered is MERRICK GARLAND, the last fully legitimate nominee put forward by a fully legitimate POTUS.

      Any TWO-FACED whining from the GOP about “unprecedented obstruction” should be met with vociferous and relentless REMINDERS of THEIR unprecedented ACT of SEDITION when they VIOLATED the Constitution of the United States by refusing to consider ANY nominee by President Obama to replace Scalia when the President still had TEN MONTHS to serve in his SECOND term of office.

      We FIGHT as we NEVER have BEFORE, or this democratic republic is FINISHED to be replaced by a fascist NIGHTMARE!!

      • Publius

        Describe a moderate candidate that President Trump could nominate, be supported by Republicans, some Democrats, and you.

      • Stuart Wyman-Cahall

        I agree with everything you say…except your thoughts on the filibuster. The filibuster should be abolished. ELECTIONS SHOULD HAVE CONSEQUENCES! I threw up more than a little bit everytime our progressive agenda was thwarted because of that 60 vote threshold during the Obama years. We’d get 54 votes…fail. We’d get 56 votes…fail. We’d get 52 votes…fail. I’m done with it. If people aren’t motivated in the midterms to get off their asses and vote, they get what they deserve.

        • billbear1961

          I agree that the filibuster should not be used as a permanent legislative veto. In the old days, Senators had to hold the floor to filibuster, and it never went on for more than a few days or weeks. (I think the longest ever was several months when Johnson was president.) It wasn’t MEANT to, and it DIDN’T.

          But the Republicans HAVE used it as a permanent legislative veto for years, and we are now in a position where we have EVERY RIGHT to PUNISH them for STEALING a SCOTUS seat.

          The rules apply to EVERYONE or to NO ONE.

          Turnabout IS fair play.

          If your opponent demands YOU observe certain rules, HE must, as well.

          There are scores to settle to TEACH THEM A LESSON.

          And there is a REPUBLIC to save from thugs, thieves and TRAITORS!!

        • billbear1961

          If the filibuster is to continue, a return to the way it was used long ago must occur.

          But we must NOT reward them for stealing that seat!!

          There WILL be RESTITUTION, a compromise where moderates are chosen by a GOP administration; or they will be BLOCKED, or the filibuster totally and forever abolished.

    • SoCalGal20

      “Democrats have lost all three branches of government, and so they need to learn to take what they can get.”

      NO. Dems do not have to “learn to take what they can get”. Dems need to be loud and proud and work to get the country back from Putin and his stooges. Help with that or get the fuck out of the way,

      • Publius

        They need to win. Fighting Gorsuch is as productive as masturbation.

        • SoCalGal20

          *yawn*

          • Publius

            Wake up and win.

          • SoCalGal20

            Working on it! Thanks!

  • margaretpoa

    Horowitz is delusional if he thinks overturning Obergefell wouldn’t start massive riots. As for Gorsuch, if he’s not lying because he thinks that’s what the committee wants to hear, then I’m the Loch Ness monster.

    • Reality.Bites

      I’m sure the Repugs want to hear the exact opposite

      • margaretpoa

        Some do, certainly, (Horowitz for example) but most Repugs on that committee are more nuanced than that. They’ve told Gorsuch the most likely strategy to take to get him confirmed easily and part of the would be to claim he believes that Roe and Onergefell are “settled law”. Alito said the same thing about Roe during his confirmation but he’s made it clear over and over since then that he’d overturn it if he could.

    • Ninja0980

      Indeed, the Stonewall riots and other things will be nothing compared to what will happen if you take rights away from people.

  • Cuberly

    Ah yes the myth of “originalism” a far right corporatist power grab with a white-washed marketing campaign of “It’s following the founding fathers original intent when they wrote the Constitution”.

    A. Originalism is a political philosophy, not a Constitutional one.
    B. Originalism is designed to rewrite precedent to fit a far-right corporatist agenda.

    • Steverino

      Originalism is the judicial equivalent of fundamentalism, and is just as phony. It is what it is until it isn’t. Examples: the notion that money is speech. The notion that corporations are people. The notion that a person’s religious feelings (as a red-herring excuse for animus) are superior to another person’s civil rights.

      It is not a conservative agenda, it is a radical authoritarian / corporatist agenda. Fascism is like that.

      • Cuberly

        Scalia one argued in a cruel and unusual punishment case that since the punishment being meted out wasn’t common during the 18th Century it couldn’t be regarded as cruel and unusual.

        Originalism is “contradictory and incoherent”.

        If interested there’s a podcast I listen to that delves into legal issues. They did an episode about why Originalists should be kept off the supreme court. It makes for some great info.

        http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/atheistically-speaking-2/opening-arguments/e/oa49-why-originalists-dont-belong-on-the-supreme-court-49356445

        • Steverino

          Indeed, just as fundamentalism is contradictory and incoherent. It is the authoritarian desire to refer to some written document which they consider as “final and infallible,” but then they cherry-pick or ignore the components of the document to justify accomplishing whatever they damn please.

        • Jerry

          And Scalia frequently reversed his own previous opinions when it fit his desired outcome.

          • Cuberly

            Yep, he contradicted himself repeatedly. It was all constitutional window dressing.

    • Ninja0980

      Indeed.
      The notion that these fools know what the founding fathers though on all issues including present day ones is a laugh and a half.

      • (((GC)))

        And the notion that the founding fathers (notice no “mothers”… are we supposed to remain a sexist nation too?) “knew better than we ever could” is abhorrent and downright evil. It would lock us into a prison of some particular version of 18th-century morality.

        Thomas Jefferson had some choice words, quoted on the Jefferson Memorial:

        “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

        https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/quotations-jefferson-memorial

        • David L. Caster

          Franken should read this into the Record.

        • juanjo54

          The problem you have is simple. Gorsuch would completely agree with the above quote,- enthusiastically in fact. What Gorsuch would tell you were he here is that the issue is not whether there should be change to adapt to the times but rather how that change is achieved. He would tell you that there is a proper way for the Constitution to be changed and only one proper way for that to happen. Under the Separation of Powers Doctrine of which he has an extremely narrow interpretation, this is not for the courts but for the Congress and the states in the form of a constitutional amendment.

          I understand his argument but I disagree with his narrow interpretation of intent. A classic example is the Right of Privacy. Nowhere is the right of privacy specifically stated in the Constitution but it is the basis of the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment right to be free of government seizure of your life, liberty, and property and your right to be secure in your home and not forced to for example, quarter troops on your property. It is the basis of your freedom of speech and assembly not to mention your right to petition for redress of wrongs. It is the basis of freedom of the press and the separation of the government from religious institutions. It is the basis for the prohibition of a religious test for public office.

          The early birth control cases discussed this privacy right for example Griswold v Connecticut. That idea of a right to privacy, the right to be free of government intrusion into the intimate depths of your thought and action seems very obvious to me in the thought of the Founders when they wrote the Constitution. But an originalist would say, we look only at everything within the four corners of the document. If it isn’t there then it isn’t going to be the law.

          So Gorsuch would likely say, “gee this is a really stupid law allowing discrimination against gay people but there is nothing granting gay people the right to privacy when it comes to their intimate relationships expressly written in the Constitution. I wish there was but it isn’t there so the law banning gay marriage is legal.”

          And do not forget that Gorsuch does not agree with the concept of stare decisis – that one looks to precedent, the way other courts decided the same issue. This is a concept of Anglo-Saxon law going back to the4 time of Henry II who is the founder of the judicial system we follow.

  • karen in kalifornia

    World Net Daily’s reservations in no way are reassuring that Gorsuch would be good for the future of the US. I’m really sorry for the next generations that they will be stuck with this conservative court and possibly more. Frig Repugs and their obstructionism.

  • Michael R

    I wish someone during his confirmation had asked him if he
    thought a homosexual citizen of the United States was entitled
    to the same rights that all citizens of the United States are entitled to .

    • margaretpoa

      I wish someone would would ask if we’re not entitled to the same rights and privileges, why the hell do we have the same responsibilities and tax obligations.

    • fuzzybits

      Yes,they never get right to the point.

  • Stev84

    Even they can’t read between the lines. He will do everything he can to limit the scope of that “settled law”

    • SFBruce

      That’s the problem with requiring absolute purity; you can’t recognize a friend when he’s standing right in front of you.

      • Goodboy

        We don’t need a friend. Just someone that doesn’t let ideology get in the way. Someone like Merrick Garland.

  • “There’s nothing there to give us assurances that he’s anywhere on par with Scalia, and that’s the seat we’re filling.”

    Is this some new Constitutional principle that no one’s ever heard of before — a new justice has to be a clone of the justice he/she is replacing?

    • Treant

      Yes, unless replacing a Ginsburg. Then they have to be far right to “rebalance the court.”

      • Ninja0980

        Yup, like Thomas replacing Marshall, something that NEVER should have happened.
        Biden dropped the ball on that one, he truly did.

        • Robincho

          I doubt that anyone could have replaced Mister Justice Marshall, least of all Mister Justice Uncle Thomas…

    • margaretpoa

      It’s the one McConnell made up to justify not taking up Garland’s nomination.. Now it’s come back around to bite him in his pasty ass.

      • (((GC)))

        If, for the sake of argument, we accept “Republican logic” that a lame-duck president shouldn’t be allowed to make Supreme Court appointments, 45* SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO EITHER. With more than circumstantial evidence that he and his senior staff colluded with Russia to manipulate the election, he’s on his way out! (Unless the corporate power grab squashes all semblance of a justice process.)

        • Richard B

          (((GC))) You are correct – please move to the front of the line.

  • Treant

    Don’t worry, he’s lying for Jesus.

    • Skeptical_Inquirer

      They care about a few verses in Leviticus but they constantly poop all over the Ten Commandments by bearing false witness and coveting other people’s wives.

      • Craig Howell

        Well, don’t we often covet other men’s asses?

        • Robincho

          Well, okay. But in my defense, another man’s ox has never interested me in the slightest…

  • GayOldLady

    Gorsuch gives me the creeps. His exterior is just too slick and scheming. Any grown man who uses the expression “gosh” is hiding something. 🙂

    • M Jackson

      Clue –check his basement.

      • GayOldLady

        Yeah……That’s exactly what I sense when I watch and listen to him.

    • fuzzybits

      Same with the looks that Pence gives. Trying to get you to think they’re caring but silently judging you.

      • jimbo65

        Yeah Pence’s chuckly old Santa bit is a bit creepy.

        • prixator

          … and the dead eyes.

    • cleos_mom

      Sort of like the Midwestern religious talk radio godfather Richard “Dickbutt” Bott. When he wants to truly vilify an opponent he resorts to devastating epithets like “smartypants.”

  • EdA

    “Indeed, Gorsuch spent much of his hearing concealing his personal opinions on hot-button issues, believing a statement of belief now would impede his impartiality in future cases.” … or getting confirmed.

    Not to worry, sociopaths. Undoubtedly the people at the Federalist Society got THEIR questions answered adequately before they put this jerk forward, someone who lacks the common sense to come in out of the cold.

    And it seems to me that the law on campaign finance was pretty well settled BEFORE Citizens United. I hope that somewhere in the written responses is an answer to a question that should have been asked, but may not have been “Can you name some cases that you think have been wrongly decided?”

    • Dazzer

      Thank you for this.

      It perfectly encapsulates everything that is wrong with believing the ‘settled law’ argument.

      No law is ever ‘settled’. That’s why courts of appeal and legislatures exist – to change already established laws and ways of thinking..

      • EdA

        You’re welcome. Plessy v. Ferguson was “settled law” for well over half a century before it was overturned. And given that Benedict Trump, Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, and Tom Price have named to head both at the Cabinet level and for the respective Civil Rights units people who are actively and blatantly hostile to civil rights and given the bigoted and corrupt justices already on the Supreme Court, I fear that a number of important “settled laws” and cases will become unsettled, like the dismembered Voting Rights Act.

        • canoebum

          Gorsuch is a snake. I wouldn’t believe a word that comes out of his mouth. If he told me the sky was blue, I’d double check just to be sure.

  • JWC

    Gee if Mr Gosuck doesn’t make it to the Supreme Court Donny is gonna get really mad

    • M Jackson

      Yes, we’ll always remember these sad last weeks of his failed attempt at presidenting.

    • PeterC

      Did you mean “upset’ ; he IS ALREADY MAD.

      • JWC

        Mad as in insane upset as in pissed off ya along those lines

  • jm2

    first they go after “Trumpcare” and now Gorsuch? can we hope it’s real?

  • Rebecca Gardner

    OT but everyone in the Trump Admin is as dumb as a sack of hammers.

    Tech community “dumbfounded” by Mnuchin’s dismissal of AI impact on jobs
    https://www.axios.com/tech-reacts-to-mnuchins-dismissal-of-ai-impact-on-jobs-2328061287.html

    …and for those of you that do not live in the SF Bay Area. Here’s some “Apartment Sadness.”
    Rent mattress on Berkeley floor in shared room for $880/month
    http://sf.curbed.com/2017/3/24/15052962/berkeley-floor-mattress-rent

    • Skeptical_Inquirer

      I’m someone who would actually be fine with more of the tech jobs being more evenly distributed around the country or at least towards the interior of the same state. Maybe it would help with the crazy rent prices anywhere near the Silicon Valley.

    • Bad Tom

      Mnuchin thinks AI is still 50 years away.

      No. We’re climbing the knee of the curve right now.

  • SFBruce

    Yes, Virginia, there really are conservatives, (a fairly small minority, one hopes) who think you can’t possibly acknowledge things like the fact that neither the constitution nor any law recognizes personhood for a fetus. Even Scalia, who very much believed Roe was wrongly decided and said so many times, still acknowledged that fact. I wish we could take some comfort in these right wingers’ complete lack of sophistication for the political theater which is the judicial confirmation process, but the fact is, I firmly believe, based on Gorsuch’s record, that he will be very happy to overturn Roe, given a chance, and will also do all he can to chip away at LGBT equality in the name of religious freedom.

  • M Jackson

    Joe — please include some of your tasty snark after a WND -linked story, or else what is the point?

    • Gigi

      Have you ever read the comments at WND? Scary.

      • M Jackson

        Very very jesusy over there. I was banned 2 years ago for saying some very unkind things about Mrs. Palin, it ended in a discussion amongst them about my suggestion that a gay-baiting commentor ‘kiss my rosy-red pucker hole’. Yep, they banned me, and they meant it.

        • Gigi

          I was banned after posting my very first comment there, and all I said was that I disagreed with the premise of the article. So much for my first amendment right to feee speech. Sad.

          • M Jackson

            I got some pretty good licks in over there for an afternoon, ridiculing the half-term governor and the book of fairy tales that they all ascribe to. My disqus account at the time was not private and the gay-baiting got pretty intense, I had a handful of them all chattering about me, before the ban stopped it all.
            I understand, i wouldn’t want one of them like me coming over here and talking about their rosy red pucker hole. Oh wait, bad example. That would spawn a flood of GIFs over here! lol

  • worstcultever

    KILL this nomination, Dems – kill it with fire! The illegitimate Dumpy admin is more wounded and dying by the day and the momentum is ALL ours!

    NO Sct seats for traitor Dumpy – NONE!

  • Nychta

    What a person finds amusing says a lot about the sort of human being they are. At one point in the hearings Gorsuch regaled the group with a folksy description of “mutton busting” – a rodeo entertainment:

    ‘This led to a discussion of “mutton busting,” or the process by which “you take a poor little kid, you find a sheep, and you attach the one to the other.” Naturally, the judge explained, “You have to hold on monkey style, really get in there, or you go flying right off.”’

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/03/republicans_used_the_gorsuch_hearings_to_chat_about_sheep_and_basketball.html

  • SoCalGal20
    • M Jackson

      Hell, Huckabee made a plea for the arts yesterday.
      The low-bar has to be just fine at this point.

      • That surprised me. Exactly what is his conception though of “the arts?”

      • Skeptical_Inquirer

        It makes me wonder if his wife or a family friend has some grant through the NEA because that’s basically the only reason they give a shit.

    • Gigi

      I agree. Has hell frozen over?

    • You are just like the shallow men here who think he looks handsome with his new beard, aren’t you? (I am being snarky, the man looks like a plantation owner and is frightening). https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/502f3075ea111c563a3dc289ad812b80c57595cd7c8048ad4a9568b8669243ac.jpg

      • SoCalGal20

        You found me out. This lesbian is swayed by his beard. 😉

        • You want to know how clueless I am? A theater friend of my sisters was talking about some purported gay actor’s “beard” the other day and my answer was “where do you see his beard? he looks like he just shaved to me” and she thought I was being funny. I had no idea what she was talking about. Football I can talk about. Beards, no. I am such a useless homosexual at times.

      • Jon Doh

        His family tree is likely a stump.

    • canoebum

      The town halls in Arkansas scared the shit out of him. He saw he had only two options, try to be more reasonable or be hanged from the nearest oak tree.

      • SoCalGal20

        I’m glad he got the message. Unlike my idiot Representative. OTOH my idiot Rep is now being investigated by the Feds for using campaign money for personal expenses. 🙂

      • Ninja0980

        He took out Mark Pyror whom six years earlier didn’t even have an opponent and was the son of a powerful Senator to boot.
        No surprise he became arrogant after that but those town halls brought him back down to earth in a hurry.

  • Sam_Handwich

    Right now it looks like there aren’t 8 Dem votes to break a filibuster. And then what?

    • One can assume that the filibuster for Scotus justices will go away at some point. If not with Gorsuch, than for the next justice. The nuclear option only takes a simple majority vote to implement. Talk is that the next nominee by Trump will be very right wing in the Scalia or Alioto mode; Gorsuch is a bit of a “country-club mainstream” Republican to keep Democrats relatively modified according to some thinking. And, frankly, in 2021, when a Democratic President takes office, it will be easier to get Democratic SCOTUS justices approved. I say end it.

      • SoCalGal20

        Except, Gorsuch isn’t more “moderate”. He’s rated to the right of Scalia. Just because he doesn’t comment on his personal opinions doesn’t mean much. And I have to wonder if, say, another seat became vacant before 2018 if moderate Rs worried about their elections (not sure where the Rs in the Senate stand with regards to re-election prospects at this point) will want to confirm some ultra right Clarence Thomas clone.

        • BTW There are only two Republicans up in 2018 from seats that are somewhat competitive. Heller in Nevada is the only one that Larry Sabato (at U Virginia who is a good source) rates as truly competitive, Flake in Arizona is somewhat competitive but he is still favored. The other 6 Republican Senators are from deep red states will be reelected in any case. 25 Democrats (and Bernie and Angus King) will be defending their seats. Incredibly, Larry Sabato projects at this point that only 3 of the Democratic seats are wide open — in the red states of North Dakota, Indiana, and Missouri. If the Democrats can hold their losses to 1 or 2 Senate seats they will be doing well. 2020 looks much better for Democrats.
          http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2018-senate/ https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e7122e1b98c4941b44dfa0fdd1b328504736fb793d8d160730e835f33bab1c81.jpg

          • SoCalGal20

            Maybe there will be some good surprises. Heller’s seat is definitely in play. Flake I’m not sure about. It could be. If the Ds and Is can hold the the line on their races things could be interesting.

            Ds need to do something regarding the possibility of losing Sen. Bob Menendez in NJ, though. He’s going on trial later this year.

          • Ninja0980

            I honestly wish they had given him the boot.
            Him not resigning shows how selfish he truly is and how little he truly cares about the Democratic party.

  • PeedeResistance

    The STOLEN seat you are ‘filling’ was Obama’s to fill and that seat belonged to Garland. Fat Tony did not bequeath the seat to Rethugs.

    Non-treasonous behavior is hard.

  • This might sound stereotyping, and he was born Catholic, but how is he going to show up at his Episcopalian Church if he ever votes on the court like a right-wing Southern Baptist? Aren’t Episcoplaians like Reform Jews in being socially liberal? According to this article in the Washington Post, his congregation in trendy Boulder Colorado is very liberal https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/02/01/neil-gorsuch-belongs-to-a-notably-liberal-church-and-would-be-the-first-protestant-on-the-court-in-years/?utm_term=.2265f431f5ae

  • fuzzybits
  • The only thing “radical” about Obergefell is that it’s so effective at getting Horowitz’ panties in a twist. The decision did not make a new law; it simply demanded that law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples must be included IN existing marriage laws.

    • canoebum

      Equality. It’s a bitch.

      • David L. Caster

        Who knew equality was so hard.

  • Blake J Butler
    • M Jackson

      She flames up as a nasty conservative dollop of chick-bait, and then
      she goes down for being pro-choice. I’m scratching my head raw these days.

      • Skeptical_Inquirer

        For all that they bitch about snowflakes, the conservative audience basically only want cheerleaders belting out the right slogans and will viciously go after anyone who’s not completely 100% on point over certain issues, especially if female.

        (I have no sympathy for the woman, BTW. She chose to cheerlead bullshit for $ and should have had no illusions that she would be paid for any heterodox thoughts.)

  • safari

    We should suspend all lifetime appointment hearings until we know who exactly is running the white house.

  • SoCalGal20

    Former Obama speechwriter Jon Lovett has a podcast called Lovett or Leave It. I actually follow Jon onnTwitter but have not listened to the podcast yet. I will definitely be checking it out, though, after his appearance on CNN with Brian Stelter and calling out CNN for their stupid panel “discussions”.

    https://twitter.com/mediaite/status/846031737423564800

  • lymis

    ” he noted Republican presidents have a very poor track record in the past 50 years of picking conservative Supreme Court justices.”

    Bullshit. They pick conservative Supreme Court justices just fine. But their trend has, appropriately (or accidentally, in some cases) to choose people who actually intend to do their job and actually support and defend the Constitution, and to apply judicial principles.

    What they have trouble doing is choosing blatantly partisan hacks who are able to make it past the screening process. Even Scalia, one of the more reliably conservative justices, routinely followed the Constitution and judicial precedent most of the time. He just bitched about doing so a lot.

    • Ben in Oakland

      Except for the corporations are people, money is speech, your religious beliefs must be mine, and assault weapons are part of a well regulated militia, and the Supreme Court could pick the president.

      Scalia s press kit says he was an originalist. That’s one of the few places you could find it.

  • Michael

    The seat being filled is Merritt Garland’s stolen seat.

  • Piet

    This is the first confirmation hearing I remember over a long life that included so many repeated gosh-golly-gees. The faux folksy role is about as phony as it could get, but the Republicans are falling for it like junior high-school girls at their first contact with a football star. Sickening to watch and listen to.

    • Gianni

      I only heard a relatively small part of the questioning, but, just like you said, that folksy stuff with the gosh, golly, and gee struck me as so silly and very irritating. I can hear it now when he gives his opinion on some high profile case before the Supremes. Mouths will be gaping at how childish it sounds.

  • The wife played up the adoring look a bit too much. Makes him look like he expects women to wear pioneer clothes and give birth without pain relievers.

  • There must be some way Gorsuch can reassure conservatives. Surely there’s a video somewhere of him doing a limp-wrist impersonation. Unless…. wait. You don’t think they would ever believe that he actually has a limp wrist…..?

    Never mind.

  • cleos_mom

    What’s the problem? All Gorsuch would have to do is paste on a serious facial expression and refer to himself as a “Constitutionalist” and every rube on the midway will be lining up to win the giant stuffed panda.

  • Mihangel apYrs

    He will get in anyway because the GOP has the majority. One has to hope and emphasise publicly that he has said certain things and we expect him to hold to them and behave honourably

  • Jay Silversmith

    “originalism” for the constitution, just like “originalism” for the goat herders that wrote the buybull.

  • <- I was paid 104000 dollars past 12 month period by doing an internet based job moreover I was able to do it by w­orking in my own time f­o­r several hours every day. I utilized work opportunity I found out online and so I am excited that I was capable to make such decent cash. It is really newbie-friendly and therefore I'm so delighted that I found out about it. Look into what I do…. ➤➤➤➤http://trimit.io/Wl

  • OhNo,Sweetie

    ‘law of the land’ means nothing when states can circumvent by any means necessary

  • Robert Anthony

    Ideology and religious dogma have no business in law. And a president under fbi investigation has no business appointing a supreme court justice.