SCOTUS: And the winner is... Neil Gorsuch

[Palerider]

This one will go thru ....now the next one ...which would shift the balance will be a fight. My opinion. 

[Guest Godless]

I'm very curious to see how things play out if Gorsuch is confirmed before the travel ban case reaches SCOTUS (and I'm sure it will).

[mordorbund]

Anyone know what the religious right (in general) thinks of this nomination (maybe @prisonchaplain knows)? From what I can gather, Gorsuch generally rules based on existing law and precedent. This is good if you want a conservative constitutionalist judge, but it's lacking if you voted Trump specifically to get a judge to overturn Roe v Wade.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Anyone know what the religious right (in general) thinks of this nomination (maybe @prisonchaplain knows)? From what I can gather, Gorsuch generally rules based on existing law and precedent. This is good if you want a conservative constitutionalist judge, but it's lacking if you voted Trump specifically to get a judge to overturn Roe v Wade.

As a Supreme Court Justice, he would recognize that part of the power entrusted in him is to overturn previous SCOTUS decisions if it is the right thing to do.  As a lower court judge, you don't have the authority to do that.  In fact, much of the reasoning you must use in determining if a case deserves to be moved up is considering whether you believe your decision will have a chance of being overturned or not.

This is where the 9th Circuit failed (re: the travel ban).  They (as well as the district judge) stated that they believed their decision had a high probability of being sustained.  Probably wrong on that front.

This doesn't mean that Gorsuch will be willing to overturn R v W if it comes up.  It means that this one fact shouldn't prevent him from voting that way if he saw a legal, moral, and constitutional reason to do so.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

Anyone know what the religious right (in general) thinks of this nomination (maybe @prisonchaplain knows)? From what I can gather, Gorsuch generally rules based on existing law and precedent. This is good if you want a conservative constitutionalist judge, but it's lacking if you voted Trump specifically to get a judge to overturn Roe v Wade.

Gorsuch is not the guy the pro-life people are looking towards in the Roe v Wade fight.  Even if Gorsuch was a flaming conservative, his ruling wouldn't be enough to overturn the 5 other judges (including Kennedy) who will keep Roe v Wade intact.  But, the pro-life people are looking towards the next judge that Trump gets to nominate because then THAT will shift the balance of the court.

Now, as far as constitutional precedent.  Yes, 40 years of precedent is not something a constitutionalist Supreme Court Judge - even Scalia - would want to overturn.  But, you don't have to overturn Roe v Wade to render Roe v Wade powerless.  For example, say Congress manages to stay majority pro-life and passes a bill to ban abortion past 20 weeks.  This, for sure, is going to get a Constitutional challenge to face the Supreme Court which would go nowhere with just Gorsuch but would get a real chance of getting upheld by one more constitutionalist judge after Gorsuch.  Now, the States would also gain some power here.  Roe v Wade passed despite a majority of State's opposing laws.  Putting another judge on the SC after Gorsuch would give them a chance to install State Laws that effectively neuter Roe v Wade in a similar manner that smoking cigarettes have been effectively reduced to the point of almost non-existence in the state of Florida through ordinances and taxation.  Currently, these types of laws can't gain traction because if it gets constitutional challenge and bubbles out of the appellate courts the gets snuffed out of the Supreme Court, if they even decide to hear the case.

[prisonchaplain]

4 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Anyone know what the religious right (in general) thinks of this nomination (maybe @prisonchaplain knows)? From what I can gather, Gorsuch generally rules based on existing law and precedent. This is good if you want a conservative constitutionalist judge, but it's lacking if you voted Trump specifically to get a judge to overturn Roe v Wade.

The headlines over at christianpost.com, which is a pretty conservative site (though with some younger, more moderate voices, and enough diverse voices to make it interesting) has been mostly positive. Gorsuch is seen as "Trump fulfills promise."  Still, I haven't seen much discussion over whether he would actually vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Conservatives are always at a disadvantage, because we do believe in originalist interpretations, and on not "legislating from the bench." Ironically, since the pro-abortion ruling has a lengthy history now, and subsequent rulings, most conservative judges would NOT overturn Roe v. Wade, no matter how heinous they personally view the ruling to be. Liberals are under no such restraints.

[Guest Godless]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

For example, say Congress manages to stay majority pro-life and passes a bill to ban abortion past 20 weeks.  This, for sure, is going to get a Constitutional challenge to face the Supreme Court which would go nowhere with just Gorsuch but would get a real chance of getting upheld by one more constitutionalist judge after Gorsuch. 

The problem with this hypothetical is that nearly all abortions (both elective and medically necessary) are performed prior to 13 weeks, and more than half are performed within 8 weeks. (source). There seems to be a relentless effort from the pro-life crowd to abolish late-term abortions, while neglecting the fact that such abortions are nearly always done out of medical necessity. If this ends up being the compromise position on the abortion issue, it is very unlikely to succeed, even with a greater number of conservatives on the bench. 

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Godless said:

The problem with this hypothetical is that nearly all abortions (both elective and medically necessary) are performed prior to 13 weeks, and more than half are performed within 8 weeks. (source). There seems to be a relentless effort from the pro-life crowd to abolish late-term abortions, while neglecting the fact that such abortions are nearly always done out of medical necessity. If this ends up being the compromise position on the abortion issue, it is very unlikely to succeed, even with a greater number of conservatives on the bench. 

I understand that the pro-life side is very passionate and very committed (just like the pro-choice side) but I am beginning to feel that both sides are a bit foolish. Abortion has been legal for 40+ years now. Do you (generic usage of the word) really think that it's going anyway anytime soon? It isn't. Radical pro choice groups use fear (Oh the right wingers will take away our right to abortion!) to raise money. Radical pro life groups (ban all abortions!) use fear to raise money. The middle ground (what few people there are in the middle on this deeply controversial issue) think "both of you look ridiculous." 

Edited February 14, 2017 by MormonGator

[NightSG]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

(Oh the right wingers will take away our right to abortion!)

Because somehow, refusing to pay for it is taking away the right.

Honestly, there are a lot of things I'm willing to not actively oppose as long as I'm not being required to pay for or otherwise facilitate them.  Convenience abortion straddles that line pretty widely, but if my taxes went down due to not paying for any of them, I could find better things to do than get involved in that mess.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Because somehow, refusing to pay for it is taking away the right.

We agree totally on that. I never would force a pro-lifer to pay for someone else's abortion. No way. 

Edited February 14, 2017 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

@NightSG-And every time someone tries to tell you to buy THEIR birth control pills, you should force them to buy you a new shotgun. 

[Guest Godless]

2 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Because somehow, refusing to pay for it is taking away the right.

Honestly, there are a lot of things I'm willing to not actively oppose as long as I'm not being required to pay for or otherwise facilitate them.  Convenience abortion straddles that line pretty widely, but if my taxes went down due to not paying for any of them, I could find better things to do than get involved in that mess.

Good thing the 40-something year-old Hyde Amendment prevents federal money from being used for abortions, which is only a part of what Planned Parenthood does and literally the only thing that isn't government-subsidized. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

Good thing the 40-something year-old Hyde Amendment prevents federal money from being used for abortions, which is only a part of what Planned Parenthood does and literally the only thing that isn't government-subsidized. 

The thing is, progressives who cite the Hyde Amendment tend to be the same folks who fight tooth and nail against the prospect of educational vouchers going to church-run K-12 schools, even if the church is running the school at a loss.  We're OK indirectly subsidizing abortionists; but heaven forfend taxpayer dollars wind up in the hands of *priests*!!!

I think most of us instinctively understand that what with common overhead and administrative costs, any attempts to "screen off" federal funds from this objectionable program or that, are largely fictional.  And in the current PP debate--I think many on the left understand this too; which is why they refuse to just spin PP's abortion services off into a wholly independent entity.  Because without the federal funding--or the ability to pool costs with federally-subsidized services--they'd be unable to target (err . . . serve) the communities they most wish to be getting low-cost abortions.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

6 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I understand that the pro-life side is very passionate and very committed (just like the pro-choice side) but I am beginning to feel that both sides are a bit foolish. Abortion has been legal for 40+ years now. Do you (generic usage of the word) really think that it's going anyway anytime soon? It isn't. Radical pro choice groups use fear (Oh the right wingers will take away our right to abortion!) to raise money. Radical pro life groups (ban all abortions!) use fear to raise money. The middle ground (what few people there are in the middle on this deeply controversial issue) think "both of you look ridiculous." 

I gotta call you out on this one. If you understand that pro-lifers believe life begins at conception how can you possibly say we are ridiculous in opposing all abortions? You can call us idealistic and naive, but "ridiculous?" Likewise, if one really believes that life does not begin with certainty until baby is independent from the mother (the umbilical cord is cut) then why would you allow others (especially men and religious zealots) to heap judgment on you? Why would you let government regulate how you make choices about what happens to your own body?

At least one side is wrong, but where is the moral compass for the middle-grounders? By the way, I mean this question sincerely. I really don't get it, and am willing to learn exactly what the middle-ground ethical perspective actually is.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Godless said:

Good thing the 40-something year-old Hyde Amendment prevents federal money from being used for abortions, which is only a part of what Planned Parenthood does and literally the only thing that isn't government-subsidized. 

This isn't truly effective considering the way PP records their services.  When a woman comes in for an abortion, she needs to have a variety of preparatory and supplemental services to accommodate the abortion.  All these services fall outside the Hyde Amendment even though she never would have needed them in the first place if she hadn't come in for an abortion.

This also tilts the reporting of services by PP and the fungibility of accounts.  They can provide (just using round numbers as an example) $2000 of services charged to the government subsidies which normally cost $1000.  Then provide an abortion for free that would normally cost $1000.  Thus we end up paying for them in reality, but never on paper.

While such paper pushing methodology can be used in almost any situation, we can solve it by having independent auditors look at the books and determine if the number varies by a significant margin, then they should have their funding revoked for fraud.

@Just_A_Guy, this would also solve the issue of funding to religious schools.

The auditors would have to be chosen in a bipartisan way.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I gotta call you out on this one. If you understand that pro-lifers believe life begins at conception how can you possibly say we are ridiculous in opposing all abortions? You can call us idealistic and naive, but "ridiculous?" Likewise, if one really believes that life does not begin with certainty until baby is independent from the mother (the umbilical cord is cut) then why would you allow others (especially men and religious zealots) to heap judgment on you? Why would you let government regulate how you make choices about what happens to your own body?

At least one side is wrong, but where is the moral compass for the middle-grounders? By the way, I mean this question sincerely. I really don't get it, and am willing to learn exactly what the middle-ground ethical perspective actually is.

Do you really think that an outright ban on abortions is going to happen anytime soon? That's what is naive. It hasn't happened in 40+ years. The pro-life side is operating like a baseball manager who lets a player bat .000 and does nothing to change it. If you want abortions to be banned, you (generic term for all pro-lifers) might want to make adjustments to your strategy (again, not your meaning PC, generic usage). Pro-lifers can't make adjustments though because they demand "all or nothing." That attitude will get them nowhere. 

Edited February 15, 2017 by MormonGator

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Do you really think that an outright ban on abortions is going to happen anytime soon? That's what is naive. It's not going to happen anytime soon. It hasn't happened in 40+ years. The pro-life side is operating like a baseball manager who lets a player bat .000 and does nothing to change it. If you want abortions to be banned, you (generic term for all pro-lifers) might want to make adjustments to your strategy. 

There are only two strategies possible: (1) Enforce your views on everyone else; (2) convince most people that you're right. Unfortunately, when it comes to the murder of the preborn, abortion "rights" folks are pushing downhill. The idea that a wicked people will see the wickedness of their murders, humble themselves before God, repent, and turn from their actions is historically unlikely (though not impossible). The only other method to do away with abortion is to maintain that a majority want restrictions, and so implement and enforce such restrictions.

A compounding difficulty here is the way abortion was forced into American practice through blatant and horrible political means. The Supreme Court actually invented a "right to privacy", claiming it was implicit, and then used this "right of privacy" as an excuse to say that women had the "right" to private abortion with no government interference. I have heard even staunchly pro-abortion-rights lawyers openly admit that Roe v. Wade is the most embarrassingly incompetent SCOTUS decision of the last century or more.

The truth is that the large majority of people do support abortion restrictions, even while the majority also supports some level of abortion access. Abortionist groups lyingly call people like me, who support access to early-term abortion in case of danger to the mother's life or health (or forcible rape), to be "pro-choice". I have to believe that a just God will hold such people accountable for their lies and the unspeakable deaths that result from them.

[prisonchaplain]

12 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Do you really think that an outright ban on abortions is going to happen anytime soon? That's what is naive. It hasn't happened in 40+ years. The pro-life side is operating like a baseball manager who lets a player bat .000 and does nothing to change it. If you want abortions to be banned, you (generic term for all pro-lifers) might want to make adjustments to your strategy (again, not your meaning PC, generic usage). Pro-lifers can't make adjustments though because they demand "all or nothing." That attitude will get them nowhere. 

Strategically, I understand. My reaction was to the word "ridiculous." Truth is, the Pro-life cause has seen good strides. Many clinics have closed down due to pro-life legislation calling for greater controls and health standards at clinics. Other places see fewer abortions due to parental notification laws, waiting periods, etc. Then there is the willingness of most pro-lifer proponents to allow exceptions for rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life. So, I'm not see the all or nothing approach on our side. And...pro-choice folks get this. It's why every time there is a proposal for parental notification they insist that it's just a pro-life trick to scale back a woman's right to choose. Neither side likes to "compromise," yet both are willing to work incrementally.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have heard even staunchly pro-abortion-rights lawyers openly admit that Roe v. Wade is the most embarrassingly incompetent SCOTUS decision of the last century or more.

 

It was. It's a foolish decision, absolutely disgraceful from a legal standpoint.  The Supreme Court made up a law that doesn't exist. Yup. Absolutely. We agree. In reality though, the supreme court decided it and we can't go back in time and ask them for a do-over. Or, we can go back in time and ask for a do-over. Like they did in PP vs Casey (I'm not a lawyer, so if I get the case wrong, my bad). 

Abortion rights will exist in this country one way or another for the foreseeable future.  

Edited February 15, 2017 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

 So, I'm not see the all or nothing approach on our side. And...pro-choice folks get this. 

They do. That's why the pro-choice side is more successful. They are much, much more "politically savvy" (for lack of a better term) than the pro-life side is. 

[Just_A_Guy]

I, for one, don't mind the notion of a right to privacy via a vis prospective government intervention.  What I choke on, is the notion that this "right to privacy" includes the right to wantonly victimize the powerless without fear of legal consequences.  

The right to be left alone (and, if you wish to extend that right, to reproductive freedom) no more covers a woman's "need" for an elective abortion, than it covers a man's "need" to engage in forcible sexual intercourse.  That's the real horror of Roe:  it blithely declared a certain class of human life, to be sub-human and unworthy of any protection except whatever its master--err, "mother"--saw fit to confer upon it.  That places it on the order of the Dred Scott decision.  Progressives deplore the Constitution's "3/5 compromise"; but since Casey we've been living under a 22/40 dogma that can't even be called a "compromise" and, like slavery before it, is primarily concerned with safeguarding the prerogatives of the strong at the expense of the weak.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I, for one, don't mind the notion of a right to privacy via a vis prospective government intervention.  What I choke on, is the notion that this "right to privacy" includes the right to wantonly victimize the powerless without fear of legal consequences.  

The right to be left alone (and, if you wish to extend that right, to reproductive freedom) no more covers a woman's "need" for an elective abortion, than it covers a man's "need" to engage in forcible sexual intercourse.  That's the real horror of Roe:  it blithely declared a certain class of human life, to be sub-human and unworthy of any protection except whatever its master--err, "mother"--saw fit to confer upon it.  That places it on the order of the Dred Scott decision.  Progressives deplore the Constitution's "3/5 compromise"; but since Casey we've been living under a 22/40 dogma that can't even be called a "compromise" and, like slavery before it, is primarily concerned with safeguarding the prerogatives of the strong at the expense of the weak.

This.

The problem though is the religious pro-lifers can't argue effectively.  They can't seem to shift the focus away from castigating the mother towards focusing on the HUMAN child.  My pro-life discussions always start with this is not about The Rights of the Woman.  This is about The Rights of the Child.  I notice more often than not that when any pro-lifer is asked - when does that baby become a PERSON... they stop arguing and start thinking.

[anatess2]

From Gorsuch's resume and voting history, I can say he is a great choice to sit on Scalia's chair.

After a few days of following his congressional hearings... man o man.  This guy IS IT.  He is the BEST Constitutionalist in all of America (that I know).

This Gorsuch vs Feinstein moment is pure golden:

 

[anatess2]

Another pure gold.  Tucker Carlson had this guy on his show who wrote a letter to the Senate to vote down Gorsuch because he NEVER rules against a corporation and that he is a racist and White Supremacist.  I was yelling at Tucker on TV for not being ready to debate this guy listing the cases that Gorsuch ruled against a corporation or for a minority.  Well, Feinstein got an earful of it from Gorsuch on the hearings.

I'll go ahead and link Carlson's interview below as well so you can see where Feinstein is getting her questions from.

 

 

[anatess2]

And my favorite... Gorsuch's human moment.