Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanetF
The whole idea of a "stolen seat" just
doesn't cut it with me. We have no way of knowing if Garland would have
even been confirmed.
|
I guess not, but he did have the opportunity for a fair hearing stolen from him by the intransigence of the Republicans.
How about we deny President Trump the opportunity to nominate a
candidate from the Supreme Court until the investigation clears him and
his campaign of treasonous collusion with the Russian government.
Seems reasonable to me. 
Mar 21, '17, 11:53 am
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: August 27, 2013
Posts: 2,204
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by St Francis
Goresuch has been interested in life issues since he was in school, when
he wrote a paper about euthanasia. Yes, he will rule as a judge on
abortion cases. He made it clear that the job of legislating belongs to
lawmakers: if we want better laws, we need better legislating, not
activist judges. Additionally, when we take a case to court, or get
taken to court, we need to have a good case, because the judge has to
rule on the case brought before him, not whatever he thinks.
|
Unfortunately, those "life issues" don't appear to extend to
maternity leave for working mothers who choose life. Verdict's still out
on that.
|
Mar 21, '17, 12:01 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: October 23, 2006
Posts: 2,477
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Questioner2
I guess not, but he did have the opportunity for a fair hearing stolen from him by the intransigence of the Republicans.
|
The Democrats would have and have done the same thing in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Questioner2
How about we deny President Trump the
opportunity to nominate a candidate from the Supreme Court until the
investigation clears him and his campaign of treasonous collusion with
the Russian government. Seems reasonable to me. |
You don't have the votes nor is there any evidence of collusion
with the Russian government and treasonous isn't even on the board.
__________________
Tiber swim team 73. Jn14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in
God, believe also in me. (Christ) Lk1:48 For he hath regarded the low
estate of his handmaiden: (Mary) for, behold, from henceforth all
generations shall call me blessed. The Ultimate truth is CHRIST who is
TRUTH.
|
Mar 21, '17, 12:06 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: October 23, 2006
Posts: 2,477
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFerri48
|
I would hope any judge considered for SCOTUS would walk out if any
President asked them to over turn any law. Otherwise they would be
nothing more than a political opportunist. We have enough of those
judges already on the Supreme Court and other courts whose decisions are
based on their left political views, not on the Constitution.
__________________
Tiber swim team 73. Jn14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in
God, believe also in me. (Christ) Lk1:48 For he hath regarded the low
estate of his handmaiden: (Mary) for, behold, from henceforth all
generations shall call me blessed. The Ultimate truth is CHRIST who is
TRUTH.
|
Mar 21, '17, 12:28 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomuser
Unfortunately, those "life issues" don't
appear to extend to maternity leave for working mothers who choose life.
Verdict's still out on that.
|
We've already had that discussion.
1. It's not like a pregnancy so unwanted that a woman will have an abortion is difficult to avoids,
and 2. your position holds the lives of the unborn hostage to a
political position that is nowhere near as serious as whether the nation
will continue to permit a form of murder. It would be like saying Let's
put off freeing the slaves until we have a minimum wage in place.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
Mar 21, '17, 12:33 pm
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: September 19, 2013
Posts: 6,810
Religion: Catholic - Roman Rite
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairda
I have a debate going on at my house by a
few kids in religious class about Gorsuch. I would like feedback from
others. Here is how the child starts the discussion. My teacher Sister
Mary told us that it was wrong to use stolen money if it was given to
me. For example, If Bobby steals $5 from his mother's purse and tries to
give it to me to spend then I am not supposed to accept it as it is not
his to give or spend. Sister Mary says it is wrong to accept the money
EVEN if I planned to do great good with the money like give it to the
poor box in the back of church. Sister Mary says it must be given back
to the person it was stolen from.
My child looked at me and asked is that true that it is better to give
it back than to give it to a charity. I agree with Sister Mary to my
child.
Then my adolescent chimes in "well if that is true then how can Judge
Gorsuch accept a stolen seat that was supposed to go to Judge Garland."
He goes on to say, "Judge Gorsuch probably thinks he would use the
opportunity as Supreme court judge to reverse Roe verses Wade and do
ultimate good with the stolen seat. But if what Sister Mary says is true
then it is not his seat to use. He should do the just thing, stand up
and say that seat should first be offered to the man it was stolen
from." Then he asks "isn't Judge Gorsuch a Catholic?
HMMMMMM. WOW from the mouths of babes. I never thought of it that way.
Any offers to come to my house for a debate on moral dilemmas? LOL I need a break.
|
First of all, it's not a "stolen seat."
Reasons:
1) There is a tradition (not law, but tradition) of not making life time
appointments during an active Presidential election. This has been
tradition of a long time. The only thing that has changed is the length
of the Presidential election. If the roles were reversed, the Democrats
would have held off on the vote too, siting the Biden rule (the only
difference is they might not have called it the "Biden rule").
Perhaps there should be a rule put into place regarding when the "lame
duck" season starts since Presidential elections seem to be starting
earlier and earlier? However, such a rule does not currently exist.
2) Gorsuch maintains the status quo of the Supreme Court. He's not
replacing a liberal or moderate member of the court. So the status quo
is remaining the same. The balance is not being tipped. On the other
hand, Garland's appointment would have tipped the balance. Obama and the
Democrats were ignoring tradition in an attempt to tip the scale of
balance in the Supreme Court.
If Gorsuch was tipping the balance in favor of the Republicans, then I would acknowledge that the argument has SOME validity.
3) The fact that Democrats are making this argument is PROOF that they
believe in legislating from the bench (however, they rarely hide that
anymore).
There is no guarantee that any Republican Justice would vote against Roe
v Wade because Republican Judges are more likely to vote in accordance
with the facts argued in the case and the letter of the law and NOT
using their own conscience. Republicans lawyers and judges typically
believe in the "author's intent" when the law was written and typically
do not believe in applying a law to situations not considered by the
author.
For example: When the Constitution was written, the idea of legal
abortion was unthinkable. Therefore, no lines of the Constitution cover
abortion. If the Founding Fathers would have believed that abortion
would have been debated 200 years later, they would have written it into
the Constitution (one way or another). Addtionally, none of the
Amendments to the Constitution were written with abortion in mind. The
Constitution grants jurisdiction to the states for all matters not
covered by the Constitution, therefore, abortion should be a state issue
(unless an amendment to the Constitution can be created to outlaw it).
4) Addtionally, it can be argued that Roe v Wade was a "stolen
decision," using dirty tricks to win the outcome and was not an honest
law suite. "Roe" was not seeking an abortion and never had an abortion.
She was not involved with the case. She was simply convinced or tricked
to agree to a lawsuit by activist lawyers who never included her after
she signed the suit. They also used science that has since been proven
false and "Roe" went on to join the pro-life movement and lobby against
the Roe vs Wade decision. She even started working with Priests for
Life, which lead her to become a Christian and then eventually a
Catholic.
I pray this helps.
God Bless
|
Mar 21, '17, 12:34 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Questioner2
I guess not, but he did have the opportunity for a fair hearing stolen from him by the intransigence of the Republicans.
|
Nothing was stolen from anyone. He did not have possession of or a right to any hearings.
Quote:
How about we deny President Trump the opportunity to nominate a
candidate from the Supreme Court until the investigation clears him and
his campaign of treasonous collusion with the Russian government.
Seems reasonable to me.
|
If the Senate feels like doing that, they will. But it doesn't seem like they feel like doing that.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
Mar 21, '17, 12:35 pm
|
 |
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: June 8, 2004
Posts: 4,566
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Questioner2
I guess not, but he did have the opportunity for a fair hearing stolen from him by the intransigence of the Republicans.
How about we deny President Trump the opportunity to nominate a
candidate from the Supreme Court until the investigation clears him and
his campaign of treasonous collusion with the Russian government.
Seems reasonable to me. |
. . . and now we see the real agenda here. Not really asking
about an innocent child's musing but actually just taking shots at
person you didn't vote for.
As to your original question, it was never Garland's seat so it wasn't
ever taken from him. Moreover, Garland was not "entitled" to a hearing.
In fact hundreds of judicial nominees are denied the seat to which they
were nominated merely because Congress chooses not to act on them (my
partner being one). This is simply more public because it was a
nomination to the Supreme Court as opposed to a District Court or a
Circuit Court. That is the privilege of the party that has enough seats
in Congress to exercise that power. Elections matter.
__________________
Deacon Jeff
 Tuitio Fidei et Obsequium Pauperum
|
Mar 21, '17, 12:52 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: October 22, 2008
Posts: 768
Religion: Roman catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomuser
Unfortunately, those "life issues" don't
appear to extend to maternity leave for working mothers who choose life.
Verdict's still out on that.
|
Please clarify your issue. I was a working mom and had paid maternity leave in 1997 through FMLA.
__________________
Janet
The Church is not out of step with society;
society is out of step with the Church. Jesus Christ is the same
yesterday, today, and forever. It is not the Church who needs to change
her thinking; it is society that needs to CORRECT its thinking.
|
Mar 21, '17, 1:08 pm
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 155
Religion: Orthodox-western rite
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by St Francis
I listened to the hearings today for
about 45 minutes, right during the time Leahy was trying to get Goesuch
to reveal what he personally thought about various issues. What Goresuch
is saying in this comment, and what he said to Leahy, is that, as a judge, he will rule according to how judges are supposed to rule, according to the case presented and the law as it exists.
What does this mean? He will not be an activist judge. That is good,
because the last thing we need is more judges legislating from the
bench. It is not their job, it is contrary to their job.
The job of a judge is to be a referee. Imagine a referee is refereeing a
soccer game his nephew is playing in. Would it be right for him to rule
in favor of his nephew's team? Of course not. Would it be right for him
to bend over backwards to rule against his nephew's team? No, that
would not be right either.
The job of the referee, and the judge, is to be impartial. They
are to consider the rules/ the laws, and the facts before them. And they
must narrow their vision to those things and rule on those things.
I was very impressed by Goresuch. First, he is a really nice,
even-tempered person. He turned a rebuke of Leahy into a compliment
which showed precisely what Leahy was doing. So brilliant!!! Second, he
was very clear about what he could and could not say, and did not slip
at all.
Goresuch has been interested in life issues since he was in school, when
he wrote a paper about euthanasia. Yes, he will rule as a judge on
abortion cases. He made it clear that the job of legislating belongs to
lawmakers: if we want better laws, we need better legislating, not
activist judges. Additionally, when we take a case to court, or get
taken to court, we need to have a good case, because the judge has to
rule on the case brought before him, not whatever he thinks.
|
Excellent analysis, as a conservative I can't complain about
activist judges and then expect a judge to be activist in my favor. Sen
Graham did bring up a point that as science progresses and new
information is available, I imagine new laws will be passed and sent to
the Supreme Court.
|
Mar 21, '17, 1:26 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: April 18, 2016
Posts: 538
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlhargus
You don't have the votes nor is there any
evidence of collusion with the Russian government and treasonous isn't
even on the board.
|
Not yet. We shall see.
|
Mar 21, '17, 1:42 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Questioner2
Not yet. We shall see.
|
An argument can not be based on evidence which may or may not show up.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
Mar 21, '17, 1:43 pm
|
 |
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 28, 2012
Posts: 21,626
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairda
I have a debate going on at my house by a
few kids in religious class about Gorsuch. I would like feedback from
others. Here is how the child starts the discussion. My teacher Sister
Mary told us that it was wrong to use stolen money if it was given to
me. For example, If Bobby steals $5 from his mother's purse and tries to
give it to me to spend then I am not supposed to accept it as it is not
his to give or spend. Sister Mary says it is wrong to accept the money
EVEN if I planned to do great good with the money like give it to the
poor box in the back of church. Sister Mary says it must be given back
to the person it was stolen from.
My child looked at me and asked is that true that it is better to give
it back than to give it to a charity. I agree with Sister Mary to my
child.
Then my adolescent chimes in "well if that is true then how can Judge
Gorsuch accept a stolen seat that was supposed to go to Judge Garland."
He goes on to say, "Judge Gorsuch probably thinks he would use the
opportunity as Supreme court judge to reverse Roe verses Wade and do
ultimate good with the stolen seat. But if what Sister Mary says is true
then it is not his seat to use. He should do the just thing, stand up
and say that seat should first be offered to the man it was stolen
from." Then he asks "isn't Judge Gorsuch a Catholic?
HMMMMMM. WOW from the mouths of babes. I never thought of it that way.
Any offers to come to my house for a debate on moral dilemmas? LOL I need a break.
|
Easy.
The whole comparison to Gorsuch relies on the definition of theft. It
was very clear in the first example that stealing was occurring. The
matter of restitution (from my own spiritual direction) is not always
quite as direct---sometimes the only practical option is to give to
charity.
But in the Gorsuch case, the "stolen" seat is just a partisan talking
point from Democrats. The republicans held the Senate and the House and
all they wanted to do was give the people a chance to decide who the
judge could be indirectly by voting for president. The reasoning for
this was strong because Judge Scalia's death was unanticipated.
That is not "stealing", as there was no contract (Congress does not have
to confirm a judge a certain president picks) and no illegal or more
importantly immoral transfer of property.
It's just a liberal talking point and whenever liberal Democrats come up
with a plan or idea, they automatically expect everyone to accept with
and even agree with it.
And there is this from Joe Biden:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlzhULrJC0
__________________
"The left is no longer liberal"-----Dave Rubin
"Social network censorship----SEE HOW FAR THEY GET WITH IT!!!!!" --------from Social Justice the Musical
"...censorship begins with me, but will end with you". --Milo Yiannapolous
Hate speech = free speech #1A #2A
|
Mar 21, '17, 1:43 pm
|
|
New Member
|
|
Join Date: March 21, 2017
Posts: 81
Religion: catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Gorsuch has gone on record in the past saying
that Roe V
Wade was wrongly decided;
he's talking about what the Prez might have said to him during
his pick for SCOTUS.
Gorsuch has to make these pandering statements or he'll
never get confirmed for SCOTUS
go Trump! go Gorsuch!!  :
|
Mar 21, '17, 1:43 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 28, 2012
Posts: 21,626
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Questioner2
Not yet. We shall see.
|
Off topic and red herring.
__________________
"The left is no longer liberal"-----Dave Rubin
"Social network censorship----SEE HOW FAR THEY GET WITH IT!!!!!" --------from Social Justice the Musical
"...censorship begins with me, but will end with you". --Milo Yiannapolous
Hate speech = free speech #1A #2A
|
Mar 21, '17, 1:48 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: April 18, 2016
Posts: 538
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by St Francis
An argument can not be based on evidence which may or may not show up.
|
An argument can be made for postponing action until all the fact are in.
|
Mar 21, '17, 1:48 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 28, 2012
Posts: 21,626
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by St Francis
An argument can not be based on evidence which may or may not show up.
|
__________________
"The left is no longer liberal"-----Dave Rubin
"Social network censorship----SEE HOW FAR THEY GET WITH IT!!!!!" --------from Social Justice the Musical
"...censorship begins with me, but will end with you". --Milo Yiannapolous
Hate speech = free speech #1A #2A
|
Mar 21, '17, 1:49 pm
|
 |
Prayer Warrior
Forum Supporter
|
|
Join Date: July 5, 2005
Posts: 13,293
Religion: Catholic Christian Latin Rite
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by St Francis
We've already had that discussion.
1. It's not like a pregnancy so unwanted that a woman will have an abortion is difficult to avoids,
and 2. your position holds the lives of the unborn hostage to a
political position that is nowhere near as serious as whether the nation
will continue to permit a form of murder. It would be like saying Let's
put off freeing the slaves until we have a minimum wage in place.
|
 Good one!
__________________
Christine
|
Mar 21, '17, 2:04 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: April 18, 2016
Posts: 538
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMOM
. . . and now we see the real agenda
here. Not really asking about an innocent child's musing but actually
just taking shots at person you didn't vote for.
As to your original question, it was never Garland's seat so it wasn't
ever taken from him. Moreover, Garland was not "entitled" to a hearing.
In fact hundreds of judicial nominees are denied the seat to which they
were nominated merely because Congress chooses not to act on them (my
partner being one). This is simply more public because it was a
nomination to the Supreme Court as opposed to a District Court or a
Circuit Court. That is the privilege of the party that has enough seats
in Congress to exercise that power. Elections matter.
|
You could characterize my query as "taking shots at person you
didn't vote for" or you could characterize it as a patriot who loves her
country and is gravely, seriously concerned.
I'm not so sure that the Republican obstructionism was business as usual in any way. According to Senator Leahy:
"This was an extraordinary blockade. It was totally unprecedented in our
country's whole history. Some liken it to the action of the tyrannical
kings who claim that they have sole control."
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/20/520862...e-neil-gorsuch
|
Mar 21, '17, 2:09 pm
|
 |
Veteran Member
|
|
Join Date: January 14, 2012
Posts: 10,851
Religion: Roman Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairda
I have a debate going on at my house by a
few kids in religious class about Gorsuch. I would like feedback from
others. Here is how the child starts the discussion. My teacher Sister
Mary told us that it was wrong to use stolen money if it was given to
me. For example, If Bobby steals $5 from his mother's purse and tries to
give it to me to spend then I am not supposed to accept it as it is not
his to give or spend. Sister Mary says it is wrong to accept the money
EVEN if I planned to do great good with the money like give it to the
poor box in the back of church. Sister Mary says it must be given back
to the person it was stolen from.
My child looked at me and asked is that true that it is better to give
it back than to give it to a charity. I agree with Sister Mary to my
child.
Then my adolescent chimes in "well if that is true then how can Judge
Gorsuch accept a stolen seat that was supposed to go to Judge Garland."
He goes on to say, "Judge Gorsuch probably thinks he would use the
opportunity as Supreme court judge to reverse Roe verses Wade and do
ultimate good with the stolen seat. But if what Sister Mary says is true
then it is not his seat to use. He should do the just thing, stand up
and say that seat should first be offered to the man it was stolen
from." Then he asks "isn't Judge Gorsuch a Catholic?
HMMMMMM. WOW from the mouths of babes. I never thought of it that way.
Any offers to come to my house for a debate on moral dilemmas? LOL I need a break.
|
Gorsuch didn't steal the seat from Merritt Garland.What played out
in terms of waiting until the new president was installed was perfectly
legitimate.This sounds more like liberal indoctrination re your kid's
response.
|
Mar 21, '17, 2:16 pm
|
|
Veteran Member
|
|
Join Date: June 26, 2005
Posts: 10,583
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeanne S
Gorsuch didn't steal the seat from
Merritt Garland.What played out in terms of waiting until the new
president was installed was perfectly legitimate.This sounds more like
liberal indoctrination re your kid's response.
|
To be fair, all that happened was political gamesmanship that the
republicans happened to get away with. If it was a democrat senate and
republican president, then you would hear republicans claiming that the
republican nominee was due a hearing.
|
Mar 21, '17, 2:18 pm
|
|
Veteran Member
|
|
Join Date: January 14, 2012
Posts: 10,851
Religion: Roman Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkcat_14
To be fair, all that happened was
political gamesmanship that the republicans happened to get away with.
If it was a democrat senate and republican president, then you would
hear republicans claiming that the republican nominee was due a hearing.
|
Yes,I can agree with this but to say the seat was stolen is a bit of an overstatement IMO
|
Mar 21, '17, 2:26 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: April 18, 2016
Posts: 538
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWest
Gorsuch has to make these pandering statements or he'll
never get confirmed for SCOTUS
go Trump! go Gorsuch!! :
|
How grotesque. Is it really too much to ask for that a Supreme
Court Justice be a person of the highest personal integrity? Someone who
will never lie under oath or misrepresent his views in any way?
This attitude that it is just dandy to lie and pander, all so one of "our team" gets the position is really repulsive.
|
Mar 21, '17, 2:28 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Posts: 43,250
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWest
Gorsuch has gone on record in the past saying
that Roe V
Wade was wrongly decided
|
That's not what he said today. In fact he added that Roe has been upheld several times.
That said, I wouldn't hold it against him. As the abortion rate
continues to drop, at some point iit will become a moot point. They can
argue principles for all I care, though.
|
Mar 21, '17, 2:32 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
Prayer Warrior
|
|
Join Date: May 20, 2011
Posts: 21,531
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWest
Gorsuch has gone on record in the past saying
that Roe V
Wade was wrongly decided;
he's talking about what the Prez might have said to him during
his pick for SCOTUS.
Gorsuch has to make these pandering statements or he'll
never get confirmed for SCOTUS
go Trump! go Gorsuch!! : |
Where are past comments Gorsuch has made on Roe v Wade?
|
Mar 21, '17, 2:40 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 5,834
Religion: Catholic (former Evangelical Protestant)
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
I remember that some on this very forum insisted that it was every
Catholic's absolute moral obligation to vote for Trump for the sole
reason of ensuring that Supreme Court appointments would be pro-life.
Countless other moral issues were compromised for this? Really? An "it is what is" approach to abortion law?
|
Mar 21, '17, 2:50 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWest
Gorsuch has gone on record in the past saying
that Roe V
Wade was wrongly decided;
|
I can't find a record of his having said that. Do you have a link?
Quote:
he's talking about what the Prez might have said to him during
his pick for SCOTUS.
|
Somhe was saying what he said in the hearing: that his being a
judge precludes him from saying he would decide one way or the other
before actually hearing a case.
Quote:
Gorsuch has to make these pandering statements or he'll
never get confirmed for SCOTUS
|
These are not pandering statements, they are statements on how a judge should act, and how, it seems, he acts.
Quote:
|
go Trump! go Gorsuch!!:
|
I agree that Trump seems to have picked an awesome nominee for
USSCJ. He seems to have a great deal of integrity, a very balanced
background in the law, and a thorough understanding of what it means to
be a judge.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
Mar 21, '17, 2:56 pm
|
|
Veteran Member
|
|
Join Date: June 26, 2005
Posts: 10,583
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeanne S
Yes,I can agree with this but to say the seat was stolen is a bit of an overstatement IMO
|
I agree it is clearly an overstatement.
|
Mar 21, '17, 3:00 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by twf
I remember that some on this very forum
insisted that it was every Catholic's absolute moral obligation to vote
for Trump for the sole reason of ensuring that Supreme Court
appointments would be pro-life.
Countless other moral issues were compromised for this? Really? An "it is what is" approach to abortion law?
|
The problem is that judges Republicans pick tend to be good judges
who consider the law and the facts presented in the case, and Democrats
seem to like "activist" judges who consider more than the law and the
facts of the case.
So if Clinton had won, she would probably have nominated activist judges
who believe that abortion is a right that needs to be protected beyond
common sense (like having regular health department inspections).
Now we will get nominees who are not activist judges trying to impose
their personal interpreations on us but judges who rule based on the law
and the facts presented.
Even if we were to have 9 totally committed pro-life justices, since
there is no mention of anything related to abortion in the Constitution,
they most they could do about Roe v Wade is to reverse the decision,
putting the issue back to the states to decide.
But the other thing they will do is to decide other less encompassing
laws according to the law and the facts... rather than according to
their own political leanings.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
Mar 21, '17, 3:15 pm
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: June 3, 2004
Posts: 8,663
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by twf
I remember that some on this very forum
insisted that it was every Catholic's absolute moral obligation to vote
for Trump for the sole reason of ensuring that Supreme Court
appointments would be pro-life.
Countless other moral issues were compromised for this? Really? An "it is what is" approach to abortion law?
|
For the record I did not vote for Trump because I did not, and do
not, view him as competent for the job. I also disagree with most of his
stances, and find him personally repugnant. The only redeeming quality
he had was his assertion that he is pro-life and would appoint pro-life
judges. Many here argued that the chance of pro-life Justices alone
warranted a vote for Trump, and while I disagreed with their moral and
political calculations I've been holding out hope that at least we would
get something good out of all of this.
Everything I've been hearing from Gorsuch, however, paints the picture
of a judge that believes abortion is the law of the land, and that he
will uphold the law. I happen to believe that only legislative solutions
will work to end abortion, but sadly too many pro-lifers have swallowed
the line that only a Republican President appointing Justices will
change things.
Now it looks like we will have a Trump Presidency AND a Justice that
will uphold Roe v. Wade. If that is indeed the case, and we won't truly
know until Gorsuch makes a ruling, it will be a disgrace for our nation
and for the pro-life movement that worked to put these people in power.
__________________
 But
I will look for some means of going to heaven by a little way which is
very short and very straight, a little way that is quite new.
|
Mar 21, '17, 3:41 pm
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: August 13, 2007
Posts: 6,874
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
For the record I did not vote for Trump
because I did not, and do not, view him as competent for the job. I also
disagree with most of his stances, and find him personally repugnant.
The only redeeming quality he had was his assertion that he is pro-life
and would appoint pro-life judges. Many here argued that the chance of
pro-life Justices alone warranted a vote for Trump, and while I
disagreed with their moral and political calculations I've been holding
out hope that at least we would get something good out of all of this.
Everything I've been hearing from Gorsuch, however, paints the picture
of a judge that believes abortion is the law of the land, and that he
will uphold the law. I happen to believe that only legislative solutions
will work to end abortion, but sadly too many pro-lifers have swallowed
the line that only a Republican President appointing Justices will
change things.
Now it looks like we will have a Trump Presidency AND a Justice that
will uphold Roe v. Wade. If that is indeed the case, and we won't truly
know until Gorsuch makes a ruling, it will be a disgrace for our nation
and for the pro-life movement that worked to put these people in power.
|
And worse, this would not be the first time that the Republicans played pro-life voters.
|
Mar 21, '17, 3:49 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 36,734
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdjs
And worse, this would not be the first time that the Republicans played pro-life voters.
|
But for Bush's appointees, Carhart vs. Gonzales would have
resulted in partial birth abortion being the "law of the land" that no
state could ban.
But because of Bush's appointees, and only because of them, it isn't.
All the Dem appointees voted to make it a "constitutional right". All of
the Repubs voted that states could ban it, even rogue Kennedy did.
Nobody was played then, and nobody is being played now. But I do
understand how pro-abortion Dems would want prolife people to believe
it.
|
Mar 21, '17, 4:08 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: August 27, 2013
Posts: 2,204
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdjs
And worse, this would not be the first time that the Republicans played pro-life voters.
|
Anti-abortion voters, not necessarily "pro-life" voters who think
related right to life issues like greater insurability of delivery costs
and guaranteed maternity leave coverage are de facto separate and
unrelated issues.
|
Mar 21, '17, 4:24 pm
|
 |
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: September 5, 2005
Posts: 17,461
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner
But for Bush's appointees, Carhart vs.
Gonzales would have resulted in partial birth abortion being the "law of
the land" that no state could ban.
But because of Bush's appointees, and only because of them, it isn't.
All the Dem appointees voted to make it a "constitutional right". All of
the Repubs voted that states could ban it, even rogue Kennedy did.
Nobody was played then, and nobody is being played now. But I do
understand how pro-abortion Dems would want prolife people to believe
it.
|
You do realize that decision did not limit late term abortions. It
limited only one procedure. Abortion "doctors" are still legally
permitted to "terminate" a pregnancy in other ways.
Partial birth is a particularly gruesome procedure. But it just saved
babies from being killed that way to being killed another way. George
Tiller would inject the babies with poison to stop their hearts.
The legality of abortion hasn't changed significantly since Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton.
My state abortion is legal for whatever reason up until 24 weeks.
overall late term abortions (third trimester) are not common. Not too many "doctors" do them
__________________
Jesus, protect and save the unborn.
The Word became flesh, He lived among us, and we
saw His glory, the glory that He has from the Father as only Son of the
Father, full of grace and truth.
|
Mar 21, '17, 4:26 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 36,734
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomuser
Anti-abortion voters, not necessarily
"pro-life" voters who think related right to life issues like greater
insurability of delivery costs and guaranteed maternity leave coverage
are de facto separate and unrelated issues.
|
Yes, we have seen Democrats assert that for years. In my
experience, however, most prolifers are prolife in many ways despite the
Democrat slander that they aren't. A friend of mine recently returned
from a meeting of a Catholic charitable organization that provides
shelter, detox if needed, maternity care, job training and employment
services for pregnant women in crisis. Not a pro-abortion person among
them.
But regardless, nobody dies for lack of maternity leave. A human being
dies in every abortion. Every single one. They're not on the same moral
plane at all.
|
Mar 21, '17, 4:28 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: August 27, 2013
Posts: 2,204
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary Gail 36
overall late term abortions (third trimester) are not common. Not too many "doctors" do them
|
Correct, and there's no evidence whatsoever (particularly when all
abortions are declining) that there's a surge of women waiting eight or
nine whole months to suddenly decide at the last minute, "Whoops-! I
think I'll kill this baby today." Is there any evidence whatsoever that
there's a rash of late-term abortion that has merited the damage Trump
has done to our democratic republic?
|
Mar 21, '17, 4:30 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 36,734
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary Gail 36
You do realize that decision did not
limit late term abortions. It limited only one procedure. Abortion
"doctors" are still legally permitted to "terminate" a pregnancy in
other ways.
Partial birth is a particularly gruesome procedure. But it just saved
babies from being killed that way to being killed another way. George
Tiller would inject the babies with poison to stop their hearts.
The legality of abortion hasn't changed significantly since Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton.
My state abortion is legal for whatever reason up until 24 weeks.
overall late term abortions (third trimester) are not common. Not too many "doctors" do them
|
I did not claim "Carhart" resolved all abortion issues. But it was
something that would never have happened but for the Repubs on the
Court. As you know, it was a minor miracle that the only pro-abortion
Repub appointee on the Court voted as he did. All the Dem appointees
voted against partial birth abortion bans, wanting to enshrine partial
birth abortion as a "constitutional right". But the remaining four Repub
appointees can't reverse Roe because there aren't enough of them to do
it. That might change during this administration if one pro-abortion
Democrat quits or dies. But it would take that.
Still, Repubs are responsible for every bit of prolife legislation and
every prolife executive order. Dems are solidly pro-abortion.
|
Mar 21, '17, 4:33 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 36,734
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomuser
Correct, and there's no evidence
whatsoever (particularly when all abortions are declining) that there's a
surge of women waiting eight or nine whole months to suddenly decide at
the last minute, "Whoops-! I think I'll kill this baby today." Is there
any evidence whatsoever that there's a rash of late-term abortion that
has merited the damage Trump has done to our democratic republic? |
Do you require a "rash" of killing to be against killing live children?
If so, you should no longer support abortion or the politicians that
support and promote it, because, declining or not, there's still a
"rash" of it going on.
|
Mar 21, '17, 4:39 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: August 27, 2013
Posts: 2,204
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner
Do you require a "rash" of killing of be against killing live children?
If so, you should no longer support abortion or the politicians that
support and promote it, because, declining or not, there's still a
"rash" of it going on.
|
There are already laws on the books against killing live children.
There's no such thing as being "partially born": you're either born, or
you're still in the womb. For all we know about life beginning at
conception, it's a little silly that what constitutes being "born" is
still a point of contention.
|
Mar 21, '17, 4:48 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdjs
And worse, this would not be the first time that the Republicans played pro-life voters.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
For the record I did not vote for Trump
because I did not, and do not, view him as competent for the job. I also
disagree with most of his stances, and find him personally repugnant.
The only redeeming quality he had was his assertion that he is pro-life
and would appoint pro-life judges. Many here argued that the chance of
pro-life Justices alone warranted a vote for Trump, and while I
disagreed with their moral and political calculations I've been holding
out hope that at least we would get something good out of all of this.
Everything I've been hearing from Gorsuch, however, paints the picture
of a judge that believes abortion is the law of the land, and that he
will uphold the law. I happen to believe that only legislative solutions
will work to end abortion, but sadly too many pro-lifers have swallowed
the line that only a Republican President appointing Justices will
change things.
Now it looks like we will have a Trump Presidency AND a Justice that
will uphold Roe v. Wade. If that is indeed the case, and we won't truly
know until Gorsuch makes a ruling, it will be a disgrace for our nation
and for the pro-life movement that worked to put these people in power.
|
Republicans have been passing abortion-reducing laws, like
parental permission, since the 1980s. And judges were overturning them,
and the Republicans kept working onthose laws and trying again until
they got a law and a case that was not overturned.
It was not the Democrats doing that, it was the Republicans.
Below in the Democrats' platform on abortion:
The Democratic Party is More Extreme on Abortion Than Ever —The headline on Time Magazine
Democrat Party Platform, 2016:
Democrats are committed to
protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We
believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman
should have access to quality reproductive health care services,
including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how
much money she makes, or how she is insured. We believe that
reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s, and young people’s health
and wellbeing. We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts
to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical
health services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose—and
seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a
woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment. We
condemn and will combat any acts of violence, harassment, and
intimidation of reproductive health providers, patients, and staff. We
will defend the ACA, which extends affordable preventive health care to
women, including no-cost contraception, and prohibits discrimination in
health care based on gender.
We will address the discrimination and barriers that inhibit meaningful
access to reproductive health care services, including those based on
gender, sexuality, race, income, disability, and other factors. We
recognize that quality, affordable comprehensive health care,
evidence-based sex education and a full range of family planning
services help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby
also reduce the need for abortions.
And we strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a
child, including by ensuring a safe and healthy pregnancy and
childbirth, and by providing services during pregnancy and after the
birth of a child, including adoption and social support services, as
well as protections for women against pregnancy discrimination. We are
committed to creating a society where children are safe and can thrive
physically, emotionally, educationally, and spiritually. We recognize
and support the importance of civil structures that are essential to
creating this for every child.
Public schools are prohibited from giving a girl acetominophen, but they
can take her to have an abortion, without informing her parents.
Yeah, one could wish that the Republicans were more aggressive on the
issue, but at least they are going in the right direction, unlike the
Democrats, whose direction is decidedly downwards.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
Mar 21, '17, 4:48 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 36,734
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomuser
There are already laws on the books
against killing live children. There's no such thing as being "partially
born": you're either born, or you're still in the womb. For all we know
about life beginning at conception, it's a little silly that what
constitutes being "born" is still a point of contention.
|
When a "doctor" holds a baby's head inside the birth canal to
prevent it slipping out as it would readily do otherwise, and inserts a
sharp object into its brain to kill it, the baby is only "unborn" (in
part, but mostly born) because the killer prevents it.
|
Mar 21, '17, 4:53 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomuser
There are already laws on the books
against killing live children. There's no such thing as being "partially
born": you're either born, or you're still in the womb. For all we know
about life beginning at conception, it's a little silly that what
constitutes being "born" is still a point of contention.
|
Unborn babies are either alive or dead. They do not start to be
alive when they are born. If they have died before birth, they are
stillborn; if they are delivered safely, they are no more alive than
they were 1/2 hour before their birth.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
Mar 21, '17, 4:58 pm
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: October 15, 2007
Posts: 6,725
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWest
Gorsuch has gone on record in the past saying
that Roe V
Wade was wrongly decided;
he's talking about what the Prez might have said to him during
his pick for SCOTUS.
Gorsuch has to make these pandering statements or he'll
never get confirmed for SCOTUS
go Trump! go Gorsuch!! : |
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProVobis
That's not what he said today. In fact he added that Roe has been upheld several times.
That said, I wouldn't hold it against him. As the abortion rate
continues to drop, at some point iit will become a moot point. They can
argue principles for all I care, though.
|
I don't see any evidence that Gorsuch would vote to overturn Roe v
Wade. His comments on the importance of established law and what he
said about Heller seem to suggest he would not. That is not overly
surprising. The only current justice who is on record in favor of
overturning RvW is Thomas. Other justices are in favor of chipping away
at Roe and increasing the government's authority to regulate abortion,
but none have shown any inclination to overturn the underlying cases.
That abortion rights are hanging by a thread is a popular talking and
fund raising point on both sides of the aisle, but it is more rhetoric
than fact.
On other topics, Gorsuch appears to be a very conservative (but not
radical) jurist, so that is either good or bad, depending on your
viewpoint.
__________________
Who are you to pass judgment on someone else's servant? Romans 14:4
|
Mar 21, '17, 5:21 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMC
I don't see any evidence that Gorsuch
would vote to overturn Roe v Wade. His comments on the importance of
established law and what he said about Heller seem to suggest he would
not. That is not overly surprising. The only current justice who is on
record in favor of overturning RvW is Thomas. Other justices are in
favor of chipping away at Roe and increasing the government's authority
to regulate abortion, but none have shown any inclination to overturn
the underlying cases. That abortion rights are hanging by a thread is a
popular talking and fund raising point on both sides of the aisle, but
it is more rhetoric than fact.
On other topics, Gorsuch appears to be a very conservative (but not
radical) jurist, so that is either good or bad, depending on your
viewpoint.
|
This is what Justice Thomas said about Roe v Wade:
SENATOR
METZENBAUM: I will repeat the question. Do you believe that the
Constitution protects a woman’s right to choose to terminate her
pregnancy.
JUDGE THOMAS: I have no reason or agenda to prejudge the issue or to
predispose to rule one way or the other on the issue of abortion, which
is a difficult issue.
METZENBAUM: I am not asking you to prejudge it. You certainly can
express an opinion as to whether or not you believe that a woman has a
right to choose to terminate her pregnancy without indicating how you
expect to vote in any particular case. And I am asking you to do that.
THOMAS: Senator, I think to do that would seriously compromise my
ability to sit on a case of that importance and involving that important
issue.
Source: 1991 SCOTUS Senate Confirmation Hearings , Sep 11, 1991
Now, a judge can and will have his own personal opinions, but as a judge, he is supposed to rely on the law and facts presented in a case.
A referee may have a personal opinion about the designated hitter rule,
but he may not permit his personal opinion to sway his judgement on his
calls in the game. It's the same for judges in the US, not that all
judges follow that rule.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
Mar 21, '17, 5:24 pm
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: March 31, 2013
Posts: 6,328
Religion: Christian
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFerri48
|
Gorsuch is an independent thinker - I agree this is all he meant
when he said this. How would you feel if the situation was reversed - a
liberal Supreme Court Justice nominee had NOT walked out the door when
Obama said to him "save Roe v. Wade." It was the right answer.
That said, I won't be surprised if Gorsuch does go 'liberal' on some
issues. More of a John Roberts than an Alito or Scalia. Just a hunch -
and of course the guy is an Episcopalian. Need I say more. 
He should be confirmed with no problem. When you think of the liberal
nominees the Republicans breezed through. The liberals are the ones who
Bork people. It's outrageous. Just another chance to be thankful I am no
longer in that party.
__________________
 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
|
Mar 21, '17, 5:25 pm
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: October 15, 2007
Posts: 6,725
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by St Francis
This is what Justice Thomas said about Roe v Wade:
SENATOR
METZENBAUM: I will repeat the question. Do you believe that the
Constitution protects a woman’s right to choose to terminate her
pregnancy.
JUDGE THOMAS: I have no reason or agenda to prejudge the issue or to
predispose to rule one way or the other on the issue of abortion, which
is a difficult issue.
METZENBAUM: I am not asking you to prejudge it. You certainly can
express an opinion as to whether or not you believe that a woman has a
right to choose to terminate her pregnancy without indicating how you
expect to vote in any particular case. And I am asking you to do that.
THOMAS: Senator, I think to do that would seriously compromise my
ability to sit on a case of that importance and involving that important
issue.
Source: 1991 SCOTUS Senate Confirmation Hearings , Sep 11, 1991
Now, a judge can and will have his own personal opinions, but as a judge, he is supposed to rely on the law and facts presented in a case.
A referee may have a personal opinion about the designated hitter rule,
but he may not permit his personal opinion to sway his judgement on his
calls in the game. It's the same for judges in the US, not that all
judges follow that rule. |
Yes, I recall his confirmation hearings, but that is not what I am
talking about. I am referring to what Justice Thomas has done on the
Court, not things he said previously. As a Justice he has called in his
opinions for Roe v Wade to be overturned. Scalia used to join those
opinions, but no currently sitting Justice has joined one of those
opinions. That is why I say that there is currently only one vote to
overturn Roe. Gorsuch may be a second, but I doubt it.
__________________
Who are you to pass judgment on someone else's servant? Romans 14:4
|
Mar 21, '17, 5:30 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMC
Yes, I recall his confirmation hearings,
but that is not what I am talking about. I am referring to what Justice
Thomas has done on the Court, not things he said previously. As a
Justice he has called in his opinions for Roe v Wade to be overturned.
Scalia used to join those opinions, but no currently sitting Justice has
joined one of those opinions. That is why I say that there is currently
only one vote to overturn Roe. Gorsuch may be a second, but I doubt it.
|
Can you mention a case or two in which this happened?
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
Mar 21, '17, 5:40 pm
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: October 15, 2007
Posts: 6,725
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by St Francis
Can you mention a case or two in which this happened?
|
Carhart II, for example, in 2007. Thomas wrote a short concurrence, which only Scalia joined:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/05-380P.ZC
Rehnquist joined these kinds of opinions in his day. Then it was only
Scalia and Thomas. Now its only Thomas. Which is why I don't see more
than one current vote to overturn, because when given an opportunity to
cast that vote the other Justices declined.
__________________
Who are you to pass judgment on someone else's servant? Romans 14:4
|
Mar 21, '17, 5:41 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Posts: 1,239
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
I knew something smelled fishy when I heard yesterday that the Dems were pretty happy with Gorsuch.
Can't the Justices see that there is something called UNJUST laws?
|
Mar 21, '17, 5:48 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: December 7, 2016
Posts: 867
Religion: Protestant Christian
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshman1
Let's not kid ourselves. It has nothing
to do with the kind of activism you're pointing to. It's access to
contraception and family planning services.
|
Intuitively activism as a factor is weak. Nevertheless, it can play a role in changing attitudes.
The tired simple correlation between contraception and abortion numbers
spewed out by the media doesn't mean causation. There is this that needs
consideration:
Quote:
|
The trends in the United States are instructive. By many measures,
contraceptive use has increased since the early 1980s. However, the
unintended-pregnancy rate today is almost exactly where it was in 1981.
The 50 percent reduction in the U.S. abortion rate since 1980 is not due
to contraception. It is due to the fact that a higher percentage of
women with unintended pregnancies are carrying them to term. Guttmacher
statistics show that almost 54 percent of unintended pregnancies were
aborted in 1981; that percentage fell to 40 percent by 2008.
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...y-child-trends
__________________
[A]s long as the ‘[W]est’ doesn’t rediscover Christianity, it flails
dangerously about, mistaking strength and wealth for virtue. It puts its
faith in reeking tube and iron shard, in bigger weapons, and in
[‘tougher security'], in consumer goods and in its own luxurious
hedonism - Peter Hitchens
|
Mar 21, '17, 6:06 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Posts: 43,250
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATraveller
Intuitively activism as a factor is weak. Nevertheless, it can play a role in changing attitudes.
The tired simple correlation between contraception and abortion numbers
spewed out by the media doesn't mean causation. There is this that needs
consideration:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...y-child-trends |
Interesting.
I would bet prenatal insurance coverage has something to do with this.
|
Mar 21, '17, 7:23 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMC
Carhart II, for example, in 2007. Thomas wrote a short concurrence, which only Scalia joined:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/05-380P.ZC
Rehnquist joined these kinds of opinions in his day. Then it was only
Scalia and Thomas. Now its only Thomas. Which is why I don't see more
than one current vote to overturn, because when given an opportunity to
cast that vote the other Justices declined. |
Thanks!
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
Mar 21, '17, 7:24 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProVobis
Interesting.
I would bet prenatal insurance coverage has something to do with this.
|
I'll take that bet. Do you have any evidence?
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
Mar 21, '17, 7:36 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Posts: 43,250
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by St Francis
I'll take that bet. Do you have any evidence?
|
Just throwing ideas around. Have any better ones?
|
Mar 21, '17, 8:07 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProVobis
Just throwing ideas around. Have any better ones?
|
I asked about evidence because the last I heard about prenatal
coverage, which was covered by normal maternal health insurance policies
and by Medicaid for decades, was the Democrats', including Obama and Clinton, voting against it in SCHIP,
a federal grant program for poor children whose parents were not poor
enough to qualify for Medicaid. So there seems to have been no paricular
change to pre-natal coverage that in any way corelates to the decline
in abortion, which began in 1981.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
Mar 21, '17, 9:10 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: February 24, 2009
Posts: 970
Religion: Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFerri48
|
As many have said, no judge should take orders from a president
who nominates him/her. Reasonable people (i.e. those who believe that
killing a child in the womb of its mother) have been frustrated by
Republican administrations that use the support they provide, while
doing little to advance the cause of life. Democrats actually do support
the so called "right to choose" and provide much greater support to its
adherents than Republicans do to "pro-life" supporters. There have been
notable exceptions of course.
Today, Gorsuch responded to questions about Roe v Wade be citing his
belief in precedent, so we know where he is coming from, but not where
he is going. We also simply don't know if the Supreme Court will even
get the chance to rule on a life case or not.
I am, in matters other than the "life" issue, a liberal. I detest Trump
and nearly all that he stands for. I still pray for him, however. But I
like Gorsuch. We have to stop looking to the courts to satisfy our own
particular political/moral positions. We have to start to accept the
courts for the complexity of reasoning that leads to sometimes make
surprising decisions.
Courts are not infallible, but no institution made by man is. Courts will make errors.
I also like Gorsuch because he is a conservative who attends an
Episcopal church. Apparently his actual faith allegiance is murky.
|
Mar 21, '17, 9:21 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: September 6, 2009
Posts: 1,359
Religion: catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanetF
Please clarify your issue. I was a working mom and had paid maternity leave in 1997 through FMLA.
|
Lots of other companies too do give paid maternity leave to
mothers. The company I retired from 12 years ago did and it wasn't
affiliated with the government but I imagine if businesses were forced
to go this a small business couldn't afford to follow so.
|
Mar 21, '17, 10:09 pm
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: June 3, 2004
Posts: 8,663
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by St Francis
Republicans have been passing
abortion-reducing laws, like parental permission, since the 1980s. And
judges were overturning them, and the Republicans kept working onthose
laws and trying again until they got a law and a case that was not
overturned.
It was not the Democrats doing that, it was the Republicans.
Below in the Democrats' platform on abortion:
The Democratic Party is More Extreme on Abortion Than Ever —The headline on Time Magazine
Democrat Party Platform, 2016:
Democrats are committed to
protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We
believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman
should have access to quality reproductive health care services,
including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how
much money she makes, or how she is insured. We believe that
reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s, and young people’s health
and wellbeing. We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts
to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical
health services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose—and
seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a
woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment. We
condemn and will combat any acts of violence, harassment, and
intimidation of reproductive health providers, patients, and staff. We
will defend the ACA, which extends affordable preventive health care to
women, including no-cost contraception, and prohibits discrimination in
health care based on gender.
We will address the discrimination and barriers that inhibit meaningful
access to reproductive health care services, including those based on
gender, sexuality, race, income, disability, and other factors. We
recognize that quality, affordable comprehensive health care,
evidence-based sex education and a full range of family planning
services help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby
also reduce the need for abortions.
And we strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a
child, including by ensuring a safe and healthy pregnancy and
childbirth, and by providing services during pregnancy and after the
birth of a child, including adoption and social support services, as
well as protections for women against pregnancy discrimination. We are
committed to creating a society where children are safe and can thrive
physically, emotionally, educationally, and spiritually. We recognize
and support the importance of civil structures that are essential to
creating this for every child.
Public schools are prohibited from giving a girl acetominophen, but they
can take her to have an abortion, without informing her parents.
Yeah, one could wish that the Republicans were more aggressive on the
issue, but at least they are going in the right direction, unlike the
Democrats, whose direction is decidedly downwards. |
I have never said a word in support of the Democratic Party; your argument is misdirected.
I do believe, however, that supporting a candidate simply because they
might appoint someone that might rule against a law we don't like is a
thoroughly misguided and ineffectual strategy that has defanged the
pro-life movement in this country and reduced it to a withered,
vestigial appendage on a political machine that is evolving beyond it.
We might get lucky with this spin of the Supreme Court roulette wheel,
but pretending that it is a winning strategy is no better than the
gambler at Vegas trying to beat the odds and double their life savings.
__________________
But
I will look for some means of going to heaven by a little way which is
very short and very straight, a little way that is quite new.
|
Mar 21, '17, 10:24 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
I have never said a word in support of the Democratic Party; your argument is misdirected.
I do believe, however, that supporting a candidate simply because they
might appoint someone that might rule against a law we don't like is a
thoroughly misguided and ineffectual strategy that has defanged the
pro-life movement in this country and reduced it to a withered,
vestigial appendage on a political machine that is evolving beyond it.
We might get lucky with this spin of the Supreme Court roulette wheel,
but pretending that it is a winning strategy is no better than the
gambler at Vegas trying to beat the odds and double their life savings.
|
my point os that it is better to vote for a party which at least
pays lip service to being pro-life (although I think that the
Republicans have shown more than lip service) than for a party we
definitely know is totally committed to keeping abortion legal.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
Mar 21, '17, 10:31 pm
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: June 3, 2004
Posts: 8,663
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by St Francis
my point os that it is better to vote for
a party which at least pays lip service to being pro-life (although I
think that the Republicans have shown more than lip service) than for a
party we definitely know is totally committed to keeping abortion legal.
|
A better practice would seem to be not voting for a party that
doesn't deliver on its promises. If lip service is all that is needed to
get your vote, then expect only lip service. Pro-lifers have made
themselves so easy to buy that actual national legislative action isn't
even being pushed for anymore.
In short, if you vote for lip service you get lip service. Pro-choice
voters expect pro-choice laws and judges, and they push their
politicians to get them. They are not so easily bought with empty
promises.
__________________
But
I will look for some means of going to heaven by a little way which is
very short and very straight, a little way that is quite new.
|
Mar 21, '17, 10:43 pm
|
 |
Veteran Member
|
|
Join Date: June 4, 2005
Posts: 9,259
Religion: Roman Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
A better practice would seem to be not
voting for a party that doesn't deliver on its promises. If lip service
is all that is needed to get your vote, then expect only lip service.
Pro-lifers have made themselves so easy to buy that actual national
legislative action isn't even being pushed for anymore.
In short, if you vote for lip service you get lip service. Pro-choice
voters expect pro-choice laws and judges, and they push their
politicians to get them. They are not so easily bought with empty
promises.
|
I would not take that approach. If we want to have an opinion on
things, we need to be accountable and that is by voting. As it was, the
choice was stark. Would it be Clinton who advocated abortion or Trump
who seemed wanting to get the pro-life votes? Probably that was how
people cast their votes generally.
__________________
Lord, by your cross and resurrection
you have set us free.
You are the Savior of the world.
Life begins at conception not implantation.
|
Mar 21, '17, 11:37 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 28, 2012
Posts: 21,626
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Usbek de Perse
As many have said, no judge should take
orders from a president who nominates him/her. Reasonable people (i.e.
those who believe that killing a child in the womb of its mother) have
been frustrated by Republican administrations that use the support they
provide, while doing little to advance the cause of life. Democrats
actually do support the so called "right to choose" and provide much
greater support to its adherents than Republicans do to "pro-life"
supporters. There have been notable exceptions of course.
Today, Gorsuch responded to questions about Roe v Wade be citing his
belief in precedent, so we know where he is coming from, but not where
he is going. We also simply don't know if the Supreme Court will even
get the chance to rule on a life case or not.
I am, in matters other than the "life" issue, a liberal. I detest Trump
and nearly all that he stands for. I still pray for him, however. But I
like Gorsuch. We have to stop looking to the courts to satisfy our own
particular political/moral positions. We have to start to accept the
courts for the complexity of reasoning that leads to sometimes make
surprising decisions.
Courts are not infallible, but no institution made by man is. Courts will make errors.
I also like Gorsuch because he is a conservative who attends an
Episcopal church. Apparently his actual faith allegiance is murky.
|
I agree that we cannot ultimately legislate or mandate through the courts morality or personal responsibility on the people.
The abortion issue (as was the case with slavery) is an issue of justice
where the very concept of dignity of life and liberty are gravely
damaged and obvious exceptions.
__________________
"The left is no longer liberal"-----Dave Rubin
"Social network censorship----SEE HOW FAR THEY GET WITH IT!!!!!" --------from Social Justice the Musical
"...censorship begins with me, but will end with you". --Milo Yiannapolous
Hate speech = free speech #1A #2A
|
Mar 22, '17, 3:00 am
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
A better practice would seem to be not
voting for a party that doesn't deliver on its promises. If lip service
is all that is needed to get your vote, then expect only lip service.
Pro-lifers have made themselves so easy to buy that actual national
legislative action isn't even being pushed for anymore.
In short, if you vote for lip service you get lip service. Pro-choice
voters expect pro-choice laws and judges, and they push their
politicians to get them. They are not so easily bought with empty
promises.
|
Well, first, I said I didn't think it was only lip service, and
second, in a two-party system such as ours, the alternative to voting
for the Republicans is to vote Democrat, and I know for a fact they are
going to do whatever they can to solidify abortion, so I don't see that I
am going to get even a smidgeon of what I want on this issue from them.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
Mar 22, '17, 7:59 am
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: June 3, 2004
Posts: 8,663
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reuben J
I would not take that approach. If we
want to have an opinion on things, we need to be accountable and that is
by voting. As it was, the choice was stark. Would it be Clinton who
advocated abortion or Trump who seemed wanting to get the pro-life
votes? Probably that was how people cast their votes generally.
|
The choice was not so stark, in my opinion. While an outright
abortion advocate is bad, voting for a poor candidate that appears the
merely give lip service to the pro-life cause has its own very serious
dangers. This would be especially true if one also strongly disagreed
with the other policies the "lip-service" candidate proposed.
__________________
But
I will look for some means of going to heaven by a little way which is
very short and very straight, a little way that is quite new.
|
Mar 22, '17, 8:03 am
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: August 17, 2015
Posts: 5,225
Religion: Cradle Roman Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
The choice was not so stark, in my
opinion. While an outright abortion advocate is bad, voting for a poor
candidate that appears the merely give lip service to the pro-life cause
has its own very serious dangers. This would be especially true if one
also strongly disagreed with the other policies the "lip-service"
candidate proposed.
|
Defunding Planned Parenthood is lip service?
|
Mar 22, '17, 8:17 am
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: June 3, 2004
Posts: 8,663
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by St Francis
Well, first, I said I didn't think it was
only lip service, and second, in a two-party system such as ours, the
alternative to voting for the Republicans is to vote Democrat, and I
know for a fact they are going to do whatever they can to solidify
abortion, so I don't see that I am going to get even a smidgeon of what I
want on this issue from them.
|
There is always another option than voting Democrat. If you give
your vote to a Party that only pays lip-service, you will only get
lip-service. Make your vote count for more than that, show that your
vote requires action. If a Party needs your vote in order to win it will
do what it needs to get it. If all it needs to do is smile and make
empty promises, then that is what it will do.
Be active, write to your politicians, organize and make it clear that
the pro-life vote must be seriously accomodated. If you simply vote
Republican then the Republicans know that they own your vote without
having to truly accomodate your views.
Trump stated that he would appoint judges that would overturn Roe v.
Wade; Gorsuch is beginning to make it clear that he has no interest in
doing so, and that Trump didn't ask in any case. If you agree with
Trump's other policies then this is disappointing but not a deal breaker
perhaps. If you were one to hold your nose and vote for Trump purely
because of his supposed pro-life stance and the possibility of Supreme
Court nominations then this is a major blow.
I refused to vote for either candidate because I saw this coming from a
mile away. What's more, I live in a state that is so Blue that even most
of the votes for Hillary didn't count, and some of the electoral votes
even went to Bernie Sanders.
__________________
But
I will look for some means of going to heaven by a little way which is
very short and very straight, a little way that is quite new.
|
Mar 22, '17, 10:52 am
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: January 31, 2017
Posts: 592
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
There is always another option than
voting Democrat. If you give your vote to a Party that only pays
lip-service, you will only get lip-service. Make your vote count for
more than that, show that your vote requires action. If a Party needs
your vote in order to win it will do what it needs to get it. If all it
needs to do is smile and make empty promises, then that is what it will
do.
Be active, write to your politicians, organize and make it clear that
the pro-life vote must be seriously accomodated. If you simply vote
Republican then the Republicans know that they own your vote without
having to truly accomodate your views.
Trump stated that he would appoint judges that would overturn Roe v.
Wade; Gorsuch is beginning to make it clear that he has no interest in
doing so, and that Trump didn't ask in any case. If you agree with
Trump's other policies then this is disappointing but not a deal breaker
perhaps. If you were one to hold your nose and vote for Trump purely
because of his supposed pro-life stance and the possibility of Supreme
Court nominations then this is a major blow.
I refused to vote for either candidate because I saw this coming from a
mile away. What's more, I live in a state that is so Blue that even most
of the votes for Hillary didn't count, and some of the electoral votes
even went to Bernie Sanders.
|
If your barometer for being a pro-life President is simply reversing Roe vs Wade, you are likely to be disappointed repeatedly.
Given the enormous list of pro-life initiatives that have occurred under
recent Republican Presidents, and under local conservative state and
local leadership, you have to basically be ignoring them or simply
saying they do not count. The difference between what gets accomplished
on the pro-life front in say, 8 years of Bush versus 8 years of Obama is
staggering and has been posted numerous times to debunk the claim that
Republicans do nothing. The President is not an emperor, and can not
unilaterally change a law as he chooses. Gorsuch has said he is quite
strict with reading original intent, and jurists on both sides of aisle
have said Roe is horribly written and decided, legally speaking. We
cannot know if a challenge to the garbage of a legal opinion in Roe was
made what would happen.
To say you have other reasons for not voting for either candidate
(Clinton or Trump) is fine. lots of people did that. But to equivocate
on the incremental progress made when each party is in power is
disingenuous and not based in fact.
|
Mar 22, '17, 10:53 am
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: August 13, 2007
Posts: 6,874
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wedge Antilles
If your barometer for being a pro-life President is simply reversing Roe vs Wade, you are likely to be disappointed repeatedly.
|
Why is that?
|
Mar 22, '17, 10:55 am
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
There is always another option than
voting Democrat. If you give your vote to a Party that only pays
lip-service, you will only get lip-service. Make your vote count for
more than that, show that your vote requires action. If a Party needs
your vote in order to win it will do what it needs to get it. If all it
needs to do is smile and make empty promises, then that is what it will
do.
Be active, write to your politicians, organize and make it clear that
the pro-life vote must be seriously accomodated. If you simply vote
Republican then the Republicans know that they own your vote without
having to truly accomodate your views.
|
In some states, voting third party is a possibility, and if I
lived in such a state, I wouod probably avail myself of that
opportunity.
Quote:
|
Trump stated that he would appoint judges that would overturn Roe v.
Wade; Gorsuch is beginning to make it clear that he has no interest in
doing so, and that Trump didn't ask in any case. If you agree with
Trump's other policies then this is disappointing but not a deal breaker
perhaps. If you were one to hold your nose and vote for Trump purely
because of his supposed pro-life stance and the possibility of Supreme
Court nominations then this is a major blow.
|
Only because some people do not understand what judges are
supposed to do. The USSC cannot simply decide to overturn Roe v Wade.
There must be a case presented, and the arguments must contain what is
needed to overturn.
Judges are supposed to be very limited in what they do, and Gorsuch is
showing himself to be exemplary in this respect. We do not want judges
who will pull penumbrae and emanations from the Constitutions but those
who will follow the law and rule on cases according to the law and facts
presented in the case.
Republican legislators can not rely on the overturning of Roe v Wade.
They themselves must act. Now, what I think of them I will not say, but I
will not vote for people who will use their backbone to push the
freedom to abort one's own child.
Quote:
|
I refused to vote for either candidate because I saw this coming from a
mile away. What's more, I live in a state that is so Blue that even most
of the votes for Hillary didn't count, and some of the electoral votes
even went to Bernie Sanders.
|
You have that option; I do not.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
Mar 22, '17, 10:58 am
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: January 31, 2017
Posts: 592
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdjs
Why is that?
|
Because
1) There is far more that can be done than to wait for a case to challenge Roe, and for the court to swing to the right
and
2) If a President doesn't get the opportunity to nominate a justice,
they have no say in a challenge to Roe. That has happened numerous times
in history.
and
3) There have been many incremental steps taken with the law under
Republicans to limit and or hinder abortions and their funding.
Conversely, there have been numerous steps taken under Democratic
regimes since the 1990s to enshrine and protect the right to abortion.
if you want to deal in absolutes with regards to success in the realm of
abortion regarding repealing Roe, you can, but by definition you would
then have to measure social justice progress in terms of eliminating all
poverty or all climate change or whatever absolute measure you choose.
Anyone doing that is shortsighted and will never progress towards
ultimate victory.
|
Mar 22, '17, 3:57 pm
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: June 3, 2004
Posts: 8,663
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wedge Antilles
If your barometer for being a pro-life President is simply reversing Roe vs Wade, you are likely to be disappointed repeatedly.
|
Never said it was. That was the barometer that Trump stated he
was using for choosing a Supreme Court Justice, however, and it appears
that may have been lip-service to gain the pro-life vote.
Quote:
|
Given the enormous list of pro-life initiatives that have occurred under
recent Republican Presidents, and under local conservative state and
local leadership, you have to basically be ignoring them or simply
saying they do not count. The difference between what gets accomplished
on the pro-life front in say, 8 years of Bush versus 8 years of Obama is
staggering and has been posted numerous times to debunk the claim that
Republicans do nothing. The President is not an emperor, and can not
unilaterally change a law as he chooses. Gorsuch has said he is quite
strict with reading original intent, and jurists on both sides of aisle
have said Roe is horribly written and decided, legally speaking. We
cannot know if a challenge to the garbage of a legal opinion in Roe was
made what would happen.
|
We do know that Gorsuch has stated that the Roe v. Wade decision
is established legal precedent. If he believed it was a legally travesty
he might have given a clear indication, but the clearest thing he's
said indicates that he views it as being a settled matter.
Quote:
|
To say you have other reasons for not voting for either candidate
(Clinton or Trump) is fine. lots of people did that. But to equivocate
on the incremental progress made when each party is in power is
disingenuous and not based in fact.
|
I expect more from a political party that holds opposition to
abortion as one of its platform planks. The Republican Party already has
serious strikes against it for other policy matters which I won't go
into here. One of the only redeeming qualities of that party for me is
the pro-life stance, but they have not done enough to make me believe
that they are truly committed to making lasting legal change on the
matter, at least not enough to overcome the misgivings I have about
their other policies and positions. The Democratic Party is of course
awful as well, and I will not vote for a pro-abortion politician. Where I
live this means that I can't vote for Republicans or Democrats, because
both must be pro-choice in order to have a chance at office.
__________________
But
I will look for some means of going to heaven by a little way which is
very short and very straight, a little way that is quite new.
|
Mar 22, '17, 4:11 pm
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: June 3, 2004
Posts: 8,663
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
St. Francis:
Quote:
|
In some states, voting third party is a possibility, and if I lived in
such a state, I wouod probably avail myself of that opportunity.
|
Then you just upset the Republicans who then say you really voted
for the Democrat; and you upset the Democrats who say you really voted
for the Republican. 
Quote:
Only because some people do not understand what judges are supposed to
do. The USSC cannot simply decide to overturn Roe v Wade. There must be a
case presented, and the arguments must contain what is needed to
overturn.
Judges are supposed to be very limited in what they do, and Gorsuch is
showing himself to be exemplary in this respect. We do not want judges
who will pull penumbrae and emanations from the Constitutions but those
who will follow the law and rule on cases according to the law and facts
presented in the case.
Republican legislators can not rely on the overturning of Roe v Wade.
They themselves must act. Now, what I think of them I will not say, but I
will not vote for people who will use their backbone to push the
freedom to abort one's own child.
|
I completely agree with you here. This is why I say the solution
must be legislative, but every election cycle we never hear about
legislative solutions, only about the President picking Supreme Court
Justices. All the while the Roe v. Wade decision becomes more solidified
as judicial precedent.
Quote:
|
You have that option; I do not.
|
I don't know where you live or how the electoral politics play out
there. I will say openly that I did not vote for President in the last
election, not even Third Party. Where I live (Seattle) and the values I
hold (generally fiscally liberal and socially conservative) puts me out
of Presidential politics, at least with regards to voting, until such
time as the Democratic Party drops its pro-choice plank or something
changes drastically to give the Republican Party a foothold here.
Peace and God bless!
__________________
But
I will look for some means of going to heaven by a little way which is
very short and very straight, a little way that is quite new.
|
Mar 22, '17, 4:39 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 28, 2012
Posts: 21,626
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
The choice was not so stark, in my
opinion. While an outright abortion advocate is bad, voting for a poor
candidate that appears the merely give lip service to the pro-life cause
has its own very serious dangers. This would be especially true if one
also strongly disagreed with the other policies the "lip-service"
candidate proposed.
|
Gorsuch was vetted by outside groups to be the most pro-life of Trump's choices.
Concerns about him ending up like Anthony Kennedy are not entirely
without merit given the GOP's track record. By all means we should have a
conservative Supreme Court, but we do not even with a well-behaved
Gorsuch appointment.
But the expectation all along was to replace Scalia is with another
conservative should the GOP have won the presidency, which they did.
If people want more certainty with court, then they need to STOP voting
based on who attacks the best and in the interest of their own
pocketbook.
__________________
"The left is no longer liberal"-----Dave Rubin
"Social network censorship----SEE HOW FAR THEY GET WITH IT!!!!!" --------from Social Justice the Musical
"...censorship begins with me, but will end with you". --Milo Yiannapolous
Hate speech = free speech #1A #2A
|
Mar 22, '17, 4:41 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 28, 2012
Posts: 21,626
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
St. Francis:
Then you just upset the Republicans who then say you really voted for
the Democrat; and you upset the Democrats who say you really voted for
the Republican.
I completely agree with you here. This is why I say the solution must be
legislative, but every election cycle we never hear about legislative
solutions, only about the President picking Supreme Court Justices. All
the while the Roe v. Wade decision becomes more solidified as judicial
precedent.
I don't know where you live or how the electoral politics play out
there. I will say openly that I did not vote for President in the last
election, not even Third Party. Where I live (Seattle) and the values I
hold (generally fiscally liberal and socially conservative) puts me out
of Presidential politics, at least with regards to voting, until such
time as the Democratic Party drops its pro-choice plank or something
changes drastically to give the Republican Party a foothold here.
Peace and God bless! |
What people should realize is that the court does take into
account some measure of popular opinion. If pro-lifers and conservatives
get weak-kneed on Roe, the court won't overturn it.
__________________
"The left is no longer liberal"-----Dave Rubin
"Social network censorship----SEE HOW FAR THEY GET WITH IT!!!!!" --------from Social Justice the Musical
"...censorship begins with me, but will end with you". --Milo Yiannapolous
Hate speech = free speech #1A #2A
|
Mar 22, '17, 4:42 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
St. Francis:
Then you just upset the Republicans who then say you really voted for
the Democrat; and you upset the Democrats who say you really voted for
the Republican. |
So true! TBH, I used to be one of them 
but then someone explained this to me, so now I am more nuanced.
Sometimes we forget that there are other states with different
situations...
Quote:
|
I completely agree with you here. This is why I say the solution must be
legislative, but every election cycle we never hear about legislative
solutions, only about the President picking Supreme Court Justices. All
the while the Roe v. Wade decision becomes more solidified as judicial
precedent.
|
There are a lot of things that annoy me about the Republicans, and one of them is that they so often act like Democrat-Lites.
Quote:
|
I don't know where you live or how the electoral politics play out
there. I will say openly that I did not vote for President in the last
election, not even Third Party. Where I live (Seattle) and the values I
hold (generally fiscally liberal and socially conservative) puts me out
of Presidential politics, at least with regards to voting, until such
time as the Democratic Party drops its pro-choice plank or something
changes drastically to give the Republican Party a foothold here.
|
Yeah, that can be very tough.
Same to you
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
Mar 22, '17, 4:44 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: August 27, 2013
Posts: 2,204
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperLuigi
What people should realize is that the
court does take into account some measure of popular opinion. If
pro-lifers and conservatives get weak-kneed on Roe, the court won't
overturn it.
|
Of course, he could be an "activist judge" who will still overturn
Roe. Don't we like activist judges when they're anti-abortion?
|
Mar 22, '17, 7:28 pm
|
 |
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: February 26, 2007
Posts: 1,361
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFerri48
|
But he didn't say whether he was for or against the policy.
__________________
"It's a free country; you can say whatever you want."
--Old American Saying
(U.S. Postal Service stamp-- from 1977 Americana series which extols
freedom of speech and features a Speaker's Stand decorated with an
American Flag shield.)
|
Mar 22, '17, 8:28 pm
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: June 3, 2004
Posts: 8,663
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwyer
But he didn't say whether he was for or against the policy.
|
He said:
Quote:
“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States
Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that
go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen.
Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of
the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like
any other.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democrat to question Gorsuch,
immediately followed up, citing the importance of the issue since, she
said, President Trump “said he would appoint someone who would overturn
Roe.”
“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,”
Gorsuch told Feinstein, clarifying his position on precedent. “What was
once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We
move forward.”
|
He didn't dance around the topic, but rather made a pretty clear
statement about Roe v. Wade's standing as law. The proof will be in his
rulings, but his initial statements go beyond mere artful dodging of a
thorny issue.
What is also clear from the hearing is that Trump did not make make the
pro-life position an explicit consideration in his selection process (as
he said he would), as Gorsuch stated that the question didn't come up.
We'll see what happens, but I have no reason to believe that this is any
different from any other game of salesmanship that Trump has played in
his many years.
__________________
But
I will look for some means of going to heaven by a little way which is
very short and very straight, a little way that is quite new.
|
Mar 22, '17, 8:30 pm
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: June 3, 2004
Posts: 8,663
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperLuigi
Gorsuch was vetted by outside groups to be the most pro-life of Trump's choices.
Concerns about him ending up like Anthony Kennedy are not entirely
without merit given the GOP's track record. By all means we should have a
conservative Supreme Court, but we do not even with a well-behaved
Gorsuch appointment.
But the expectation all along was to replace Scalia is with another
conservative should the GOP have won the presidency, which they did.
If people want more certainty with court, then they need to STOP voting
based on who attacks the best and in the interest of their own
pocketbook.
|
There was little to anything to vet in the case of Gorsuch, and
the fact that he was the most pro-life pick should give you pause. His
own statements give plenty of reason to be concerned without bringing
the GOP's track record into it.
__________________
But
I will look for some means of going to heaven by a little way which is
very short and very straight, a little way that is quite new.
|
Mar 23, '17, 2:29 am
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomuser
Of course, he could be an "activist
judge" who will still overturn Roe. Don't we like activist judges when
they're anti-abortion?
|
No. That's kind of like saying, I like the burglar when he gives
me money, but condemn him when he gives money to someone I don't like.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
Mar 23, '17, 3:30 am
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: August 17, 2015
Posts: 5,225
Religion: Cradle Roman Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomuser
Of course, he could be an "activist
judge" who will still overturn Roe. Don't we like activist judges when
they're anti-abortion?
|
Where are you getting that he is an activist judge?
|
Mar 23, '17, 3:58 am
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: September 11, 2013
Posts: 683
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
There is always another option than
voting Democrat. If you give your vote to a Party that only pays
lip-service, you will only get lip-service. Make your vote count for
more than that, show that your vote requires action. If a Party needs
your vote in order to win it will do what it needs to get it. If all it
needs to do is smile and make empty promises, then that is what it will
do.
Be active, write to your politicians, organize and make it clear that
the pro-life vote must be seriously accomodated. If you simply vote
Republican then the Republicans know that they own your vote without
having to truly accomodate your views.
Trump stated that he would appoint judges that would overturn Roe v.
Wade; Gorsuch is beginning to make it clear that he has no interest in
doing so, and that Trump didn't ask in any case. If you agree with
Trump's other policies then this is disappointing but not a deal breaker
perhaps. If you were one to hold your nose and vote for Trump purely
because of his supposed pro-life stance and the possibility of Supreme
Court nominations then this is a major blow.
I refused to vote for either candidate because I saw this coming from a
mile away. What's more, I live in a state that is so Blue that even most
of the votes for Hillary didn't count, and some of the electoral votes
even went to Bernie Sanders.
|
I agree with your post. But I do remember Trump promising
conservative judges. I do remember him referring to the second
amendment. I don't recall him mentioning roe or overturning it
specifically. He didn't mention abortion at the convention.
I didn't vote for either one as well. Gorsuch seems like a decent and
qualified judge. He doesn't seem to have any precedent in any abortion
cases. Which is understandable because of his age. I don't think Sonya
Sottomayor had any precedent either.
|
Mar 23, '17, 7:48 am
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 28, 2012
Posts: 21,626
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomuser
Of course, he could be an "activist
judge" who will still overturn Roe. Don't we like activist judges when
they're anti-abortion?
|
Regardless of how one feels about abortion, Roe v. Wade violates the 10th Amendment.
__________________
"The left is no longer liberal"-----Dave Rubin
"Social network censorship----SEE HOW FAR THEY GET WITH IT!!!!!" --------from Social Justice the Musical
"...censorship begins with me, but will end with you". --Milo Yiannapolous
Hate speech = free speech #1A #2A
|
Mar 23, '17, 7:51 am
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: June 3, 2004
Posts: 8,663
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophie Lawrence
I agree with your post. But I do remember
Trump promising conservative judges. I do remember him referring to the
second amendment. I don't recall him mentioning roe or overturning it
specifically. He didn't mention abortion at the convention.
|
He mentioned it several times during the campaign, but most
explicitly during the final Presidential Debate moderated by Chris
Wallace:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/wa...-term-abortion
Quote:
Moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump if he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, which along with its sister case Doe v. Bolton legalized abortion on demand in America.
"If they overturned it, it'll go back to the states," Trump said.
Wallace pressed him, asking, "You just said you want to see the court
protect the Second Amendment. Do you want to see the court overturn Roe v. Wade?"
"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really
what's going to be--that will happen," Trump responded. "That'll happen
automatically in my opinion because I'm putting pro-life justices on the
court. I will say this, it will go back to the states, and the states
will then make a determination."
|
Quote:
|
I didn't vote for either one as well. Gorsuch seems like a decent and
qualified judge. He doesn't seem to have any precedent in any abortion
cases. Which is understandable because of his age. I don't think Sonya
Sottomayor had any precedent either.
|
I actually think Gorsuch may be a fine Supreme Court Justice
myself, but then I don't expect abortion to be overturned by the Supreme
Court; I expect it to be done legislatively or not at all. I happen to
believe that voting for a President on the basis of potential Supreme
Court picks is misguided and even dangerous for the pro-life movement.
__________________
But
I will look for some means of going to heaven by a little way which is
very short and very straight, a little way that is quite new.
|
Mar 23, '17, 7:58 am
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 28, 2012
Posts: 21,626
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
There is always another option than
voting Democrat. If you give your vote to a Party that only pays
lip-service, you will only get lip-service. Make your vote count for
more than that, show that your vote requires action. If a Party needs
your vote in order to win it will do what it needs to get it. If all it
needs to do is smile and make empty promises, then that is what it will
do.
Be active, write to your politicians, organize and make it clear that
the pro-life vote must be seriously accomodated. If you simply vote
Republican then the Republicans know that they own your vote without
having to truly accomodate your views.
Trump stated that he would appoint judges that would overturn Roe v.
Wade; Gorsuch is beginning to make it clear that he has no interest in
doing so, and that Trump didn't ask in any case. If you agree with
Trump's other policies then this is disappointing but not a deal breaker
perhaps. If you were one to hold your nose and vote for Trump purely
because of his supposed pro-life stance and the possibility of Supreme
Court nominations then this is a major blow.
I refused to vote for either candidate because I saw this coming from a
mile away. What's more, I live in a state that is so Blue that even most
of the votes for Hillary didn't count, and some of the electoral votes
even went to Bernie Sanders.
|
The problem with 3rd party voting in pro-life terms in America is
all you really do is help the candidate you LEAST want to win.
I used to vote 3rd Party as well, until I realized I was pretty much
throwing away my vote. Once the pro-choicers find out you aren't a real
threat, they'll leave you alone. That's what some people wanted on the
marriage issue---make it legal so everyone would shut-up. Instead, we
now have a totalitarian court system forcing businesses to accommodate
all sorts of madness. That's the problem with government entitlements,
as Shapiro notes. They just stay and grow and there is never appeasing a
big government activist.
If you look at Evan McMillan, for instance, he was invited on MSNBC not
because MSNBC wants a pro-life voice, they wanted to use him to draw
votes away from Trump in Utah so Clinton would be elected. McMillan in
many ways was undermining his own principles.
I have deep suspicions that many people did not vote for Trump in the
general election so they could avoid being called a racist.
I think people really need to think about these things and their
motives. If the motive to voting 3rd Party is to avoid criticism and
being called a racist, I've got bad news: in this line of
victim/oppressing psychology, they'll come for you eventually anyways
AND they use third-parties to get their own people elected.
In terms of being active, many people both Dem and Rep are not.
Democrats would rather make excuses for their friends, family and
Islam---with the support of some in the GOP, I may add.  The republicans, meanwhile, give out all kinds of excuses like "I don't have time" or "silent majority".
Well, if you want prosperity, you will MAKE the time, or getting to your kids football game will be the least of your problems.
As for the silent majority it's looking like more and more they are now the silent minority.
__________________
"The left is no longer liberal"-----Dave Rubin
"Social network censorship----SEE HOW FAR THEY GET WITH IT!!!!!" --------from Social Justice the Musical
"...censorship begins with me, but will end with you". --Milo Yiannapolous
Hate speech = free speech #1A #2A
|
Mar 23, '17, 9:21 am
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: August 8, 2014
Posts: 5,621
Religion: Christian
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
A SCOTUS that allows the states to make laws that tighten the screws is all we can hope for here.
__________________
FACTS MATTER!
|
Mar 23, '17, 11:30 am
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Posts: 43,250
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperLuigi
Regardless of how one feels about abortion, Roe v. Wade violates the 10th Amendment.
|
Indeed.
|
Mar 23, '17, 6:28 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: February 26, 2007
Posts: 1,361
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
He said:
He didn't dance around the topic, but rather made a pretty clear
statement about Roe v. Wade's standing as law. The proof will be in his
rulings, but his initial statements go beyond mere artful dodging of a
thorny issue.
What is also clear from the hearing is that Trump did not make make the
pro-life position an explicit consideration in his selection process (as
he said he would), as Gorsuch stated that the question didn't come up.
We'll see what happens, but I have no reason to believe that this is any
different from any other game of salesmanship that Trump has played in
his many years.
|
Well, what's Gorsuch going to say? Oh yes, Senator Feinstein, I'm going to overrule Roe.
How would that go over in the MSM?
He could say that but my guess chances are he probably wouldn't be confirmed due to Media Firestorm.
You got to play the game and be politically correct due to the Overton Window.
All we can do is speculate as to how he would decide the issue on the Scotus.
John Roberts made similar statements about Roe during his confirmation
hearing that Roe was precedent and settled law, and he dissented in the
recent Hellerstedt decision.
__________________
"It's a free country; you can say whatever you want."
--Old American Saying
(U.S. Postal Service stamp-- from 1977 Americana series which extols
freedom of speech and features a Speaker's Stand decorated with an
American Flag shield.)
|
Mar 23, '17, 7:33 pm
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: October 15, 2007
Posts: 6,725
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwyer
Well, what's Gorsuch going to say? Oh yes, Senator Feinstein, I'm going to overrule Roe.
How would that go over in the MSM?
He could say that but my guess chances are he probably wouldn't be confirmed due to Media Firestorm.
You got to play the game and be politically correct due to the Overton Window.
All we can do is speculate as to how he would decide the issue on the Scotus.
John Roberts made similar statements about Roe during his confirmation
hearing that Roe was precedent and settled law, and he dissented in the
recent Hellerstedt decision.
|
I agree that overturning Roe has moved outside of the Overton
window. But I don't agree that Roberts would vote to overturn. He
dissented in Hellersted, but he did not vote to overturn Roe. Thomas
wrote an opinion dissenting on the basis that there is no constitutional
right to abortion, and that Roe and Casey should be overturned. No
other Justice joined that opinion.
The parties and the press love to say that Roe v Wade is in the balance
because it drives donations and ratings, but one need merely read what
the Justices have actually written to see that is not the case.
__________________
Who are you to pass judgment on someone else's servant? Romans 14:4
|
Mar 24, '17, 1:34 pm
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: June 3, 2004
Posts: 8,663
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperLuigi
The problem with 3rd party voting in pro-life terms in America is all you really do is help the candidate you LEAST want to win.
|
The I must have helped Donald Trump. You're welcome.
I believe that someone that uses pro-life votes to win while not
intending to work for the pro-life cause is worse than someone that
openly opposes the pro-life cause. I also believe that most of Trump's
policy ideas are worse than those of Hillary Clinton, and I say this as
someone that would never vote for Hillary Clinton.
Voting for a Third Party candidate doesn't help the person you least
want any more than it helps anyone else. The value of a vote is only
tallied for the person it is cast for; there is no sliding scale of vote
values. In my state and county a vote for Trump was exactly the same as
a vote for a third party candidate or no one at all.
The danger in giving your vote to someone that is only giving lip-service to your beliefs, however, is that you
diminish the power and value of your vote. If I offer you a stick for
ten dollars and you accept, then your ten dollars is only worth a stick.
If someone else is getting a bar of gold for ten dollars, then who made
the better exchange? Make your vote worth something; the candidates
need it, so make them pay a fair value.
Quote:
|
I used to vote 3rd Party as well, until I realized I was pretty much
throwing away my vote. Once the pro-choicers find out you aren't a real
threat, they'll leave you alone. That's what some people wanted on the
marriage issue---make it legal so everyone would shut-up.
|
Pro-choicers weren't banging down your door or threatening your
family, and they certainly aren't looking under rocks for the votes of
conservative Catholics. The pro-life vote isn't a threat to the
Democratic Party, it's a threat to the Republican Party, that's why the
Republican Party spends the time it does catering to pro-lifers.
Quote:
|
If you look at Evan McMillan, for instance, he was invited on MSNBC not
because MSNBC wants a pro-life voice, they wanted to use him to draw
votes away from Trump in Utah so Clinton would be elected. McMillan in
many ways was undermining his own principles.
|
Yes, because MSNBC has such a large pro-life audience in Utah.
More likely it was an attempt to make the news seem "balanced" so as to
maintain a veneer of neutrality, as all cable news channels attempt to
do.[/quote]
Quote:
|
As for the silent majority it's looking like more and more they are now the silent minority.
|
Then the pro-life movement should look at itself, and how it has
failed to make the lives of the least of us relevant to society as a
whole.
__________________
But
I will look for some means of going to heaven by a little way which is
very short and very straight, a little way that is quite new.
|
Mar 24, '17, 1:45 pm
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: June 3, 2004
Posts: 8,663
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwyer
Well, what's Gorsuch going to say? Oh yes, Senator Feinstein, I'm going to overrule Roe.
How would that go over in the MSM?
He could say that but my guess chances are he probably wouldn't be confirmed due to Media Firestorm.
You got to play the game and be politically correct due to the Overton Window.
All we can do is speculate as to how he would decide the issue on the Scotus.
John Roberts made similar statements about Roe during his confirmation
hearing that Roe was precedent and settled law, and he dissented in the
recent Hellerstedt decision.
|
I expect Gorsuch to state his honest, if nuanced, during the hearing. He stated that Roe v. Wade is precedent and settled law.
As for Roberts, he did not make any dissent against Roe v. Wade even in
the Hellerstedt decision, so I don't know what your pointing at. He did
join a dissenting opinion that argued that the Texas law in question
couldn't be proven to have caused the closing of abortion clinics, and
therefore couldn't be considered unconstitutional due to preventing
access to abortion services. This is not in any way a dismantling of Roe
v. Wade.
__________________
But
I will look for some means of going to heaven by a little way which is
very short and very straight, a little way that is quite new.
Mar 24, '17, 7:12 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 28, 2012
Posts: 21,626
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
|
Ghosty;14557851]The I must have helped Donald Trump. You're welcome.
|
Don't be too hasty. I voted for Trump in the general, but for Cruz in the primary.
Quote:
|
I believe that someone that uses pro-life votes to win while not
intending to work for the pro-life cause is worse than someone that
openly opposes the pro-life cause. I also believe that most of Trump's
policy ideas are worse than those of Hillary Clinton, and I say this as
someone that would never vote for Hillary Clinton.
|
It is worth considering and never take options off the table.
Quote:
|
Voting for a Third Party candidate doesn't help the person you least
want any more than it helps anyone else. The value of a vote is only
tallied for the person it is cast for; there is no sliding scale of vote
values. In my state and county a vote for Trump was exactly the same as
a vote for a third party candidate or no one at all.
|
Yeah, that's not really true. In Illinois, for instance, the
Democrats work hard to keep the Green Party off the ballot but work for
Libertarians to be on the ballot.
It's important to recognize the strategy or you risk getting played for a fool.
Quote:
|
The danger in giving your vote to someone that is only giving lip-service to your beliefs, however, is that you
diminish the power and value of your vote. If I offer you a stick for
ten dollars and you accept, then your ten dollars is only worth a stick.
If someone else is getting a bar of gold for ten dollars, then who made
the better exchange? Make your vote worth something; the candidates
need it, so make them pay a fair value.
|
Well, Democrats always point out to me how a GOP-stacked court has
failed consistently to touch Roe V. Wade, so that's something I am well
aware of.
I understand that by voting GOP for the most part I am not solving the
underlying issue directly, but I am saving the lives of the unborn
because they at least keep tax money away from it as they can to some
degree.
I don't want to help the other side win.
It would be a different story if these 3rd Party folks had a chance, but
they never do. The only ones who would be are folks who would be
willing to spend 2 billion dollars of their own money if we are talking
president.
Won't happen.
The one issue that comes to mind here is slavery. As D'Souza notes "The
abolitionists couldn't get rid of slavery until the republican party
formed and took up the issue, pragmatically. All the abolitionists did
was burn copies of the Constitution on a Friday night."
So when it comes to the Third Party voting, I see them as even less
influential as ever. That's why in 2012 after Obama won all of the
Virgil Goode not-Romneys vanished into thin air. I always mused it was
because they got a pink slip or a 100% increase on health insurance with
less benefits since Obama won. But if the issue and platform were so
important, why didn't they keep at it?
Quote:
|
Pro-choicers weren't banging down your door or threatening your family,
and they certainly aren't looking under rocks for the votes of
conservative Catholics. The pro-life vote isn't a threat to the
Democratic Party, it's a threat to the Republican Party, that's why the
Republican Party spends the time it does catering to pro-lifers.
|
Well, a reason why the GOP has to cater to pro-lifers is that it's
their base. And the pro-life is a serious threat to the Democrats pet
project Planned Parenthood.
Quote:
|
Yes, because MSNBC has such a large pro-life audience in Utah. More
likely it was an attempt to make the news seem "balanced" so as to
maintain a veneer of neutrality, as all cable news channels attempt to
do.
|
Oh, no, no, no. The whole idea was to undermine Trump. Once the
left is done with McMillian and his supporters, they'll be thrown under
the bus as bald white racist Nazis same as everyone else.
So if people voted for him hoping not the be called racist, they are delaying the inevitable.
I didn't track the interviews, but local NBC stations could run the
clips and there's still a lot of Americans who believe their 6 PM news.
Quote:
|
Then the pro-life movement should look at itself, and how it has failed
to make the lives of the least of us relevant to society as a whole.
|
I agree. That's why I won't give money just because a group says
its pro-life. I will no doubt get flack for that, but there was a group
that thought they could pass a personhood amendment in New Mexico
because of all the Hispanics there.
__________________
"The left is no longer liberal"-----Dave Rubin
"Social network censorship----SEE HOW FAR THEY GET WITH IT!!!!!" --------from Social Justice the Musical
"...censorship begins with me, but will end with you". --Milo Yiannapolous
Hate speech = free speech #1A #2A
|
Mar 24, '17, 7:15 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 28, 2012
Posts: 21,626
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
He mentioned it several times during the
campaign, but most explicitly during the final Presidential Debate
moderated by Chris Wallace:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/wa...-term-abortion
I actually think Gorsuch may be a fine Supreme Court Justice myself, but
then I don't expect abortion to be overturned by the Supreme Court; I
expect it to be done legislatively or not at all. I happen to believe
that voting for a President on the basis of potential Supreme Court
picks is misguided and even dangerous for the pro-life movement. |
It's not just abortion. It's also religious freedom and people of the opposite sex sharing a a locker room.
Big government activists have long known that in an inattentive
electorate, the best way (and easiest) to impose their will on everyone
else is through the courts. That's really why the Democrats created the
nuclear option in the Senate---to stack the lower courts.
__________________
"The left is no longer liberal"-----Dave Rubin
"Social network censorship----SEE HOW FAR THEY GET WITH IT!!!!!" --------from Social Justice the Musical
"...censorship begins with me, but will end with you". --Milo Yiannapolous
Hate speech = free speech #1A #2A
|
Mar 25, '17, 12:31 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: April 3, 2012
Posts: 1,440
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperLuigi
It's not just abortion. It's also religious freedom and people of the opposite sex sharing a a locker room.
Big government activists have long known that in an inattentive
electorate, the best way (and easiest) to impose their will on everyone
else is through the courts. That's really why the Democrats created the
nuclear option in the Senate---to stack the lower courts.
|
Now we will see the true colors of the Democrats regarding Christianity...
|
Mar 25, '17, 12:44 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 28, 2012
Posts: 21,626
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ion
Now we will see the true colors of the Democrats regarding Christianity...
|
Well, if people don't see what they are by now, there's not much hope.
And I think a lot of people who vote for them do, which is why I get
flooded with all kinds of ridiculous excuses and logic (ie Planned
Parenthood is GOP's fault because they like capitalism, how is gay
"marriage" legal when all I did was vote for someone who promised it and
has it as a key value of a party platform.....ect ect ect).
The problem is that people refuse to listen to their conscience at the ballot box more than anything.
__________________
"The left is no longer liberal"-----Dave Rubin
"Social network censorship----SEE HOW FAR THEY GET WITH IT!!!!!" --------from Social Justice the Musical
"...censorship begins with me, but will end with you". --Milo Yiannapolous
Hate speech = free speech #1A #2A
|
Apr 3, '17, 4:01 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: July 13, 2004
Posts: 527
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
This is pretty serious, people. We need to call up our GOP senators and
tell them we don't support Gorsuch because he supports Roe and is
therefore not pro-life. We've got to remind them that they primarily
have control of the government for one reason, and one reason only: the
Single-Issue voters who expect Roe to be overturned!
__________________
You can accomplish more with a kind word and a shillelagh than you can with just a kind word.
|
Apr 3, '17, 5:01 pm
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: September 19, 2013
Posts: 6,810
Religion: Catholic - Roman Rite
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChemicalBean
This is pretty serious, people. We need
to call up our GOP senators and tell them we don't support Gorsuch
because he supports Roe and is therefore not pro-life. We've got to
remind them that they primarily have control of the government for one
reason, and one reason only: the Single-Issue voters who expect Roe to
be overturned!
|
What? Gorsuch doesn't support Roe vs Wade.
Overturning Roe v Wade isn't as easy as it sounds. It either has to be
done by Constitutional Amendment or by a new case where the lawyers make
sure a good argument in the new case that the ruling affects Roe v
Wade.
The main reason we want/need Pro-Life Justices isn't to overturn Roe v.
Wade, it's to keep things from getting worse and to overturn crazy
pro-abortion rulings of the lower courts.
The Justices themselves cannot overturn Roe v Wade without a new case
that has the same constitutional issues, and not without the solicitors
(lawyers) making great arguments that wind up affecting Roe v Wade.
The Supreme Court has only overturned itself 10 times. I recommend that you read this article here: http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-ov...ourt-cases.htm
God Bless
|
Apr 3, '17, 5:04 pm
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Join Date: September 24, 2011
Posts: 441
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChemicalBean
This is pretty serious, people. We need
to call up our GOP senators and tell them we don't support Gorsuch
because he supports Roe and is therefore not pro-life. We've got to
remind them that they primarily have control of the government for one
reason, and one reason only: the Single-Issue voters who expect Roe to
be overturned!
|
I would expect nothing less than a snarky post from someone who's
posts supports voting for Obama, supports women's reproductive "rights",
and lauds Sr Joan.
|
Apr 5, '17, 12:50 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: July 13, 2004
Posts: 527
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil19034
What? Gorsuch doesn't support Roe vs Wade.
Overturning Roe v Wade isn't as easy as it sounds. It either has to be
done by Constitutional Amendment or by a new case where the lawyers make
sure a good argument in the new case that the ruling affects Roe v
Wade.
The main reason we want/need Pro-Life Justices isn't to overturn Roe v.
Wade, it's to keep things from getting worse and to overturn crazy
pro-abortion rulings of the lower courts.
The Justices themselves cannot overturn Roe v Wade without a new case
that has the same constitutional issues, and not without the solicitors
(lawyers) making great arguments that wind up affecting Roe v Wade.
The Supreme Court has only overturned itself 10 times. I recommend that you read this article here: http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-ov...ourt-cases.htm
God Bless |
Oh, it has been the strategy of many in the Pro-Life movement for a
LONG time to populate the SCOTUS with Justices who are going to
overturn Roe. It is used as rationale for electing politicians to the
Presidency and whole parties to government, and being a single issuer
voter, DESPITE ALL OTHER ANTI-LIFE (and Anti-Catholic Teaching) POLICY.
As long as Roe can get overturned and decisions return to the states,
it's OK. It is dragged out every four years (and in some cases, every
two) to shame Catholics into voting GOP because they have given lip
service to the anti-abortion cause.
Here is Gorsuch saying exactly that he believes Roe is settled constitutional law:
Quote:
Judge Neil Gorsuch said Wednesday during his Senate confirmation hearing
that he accepts Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized
abortion nationwide, as the “law of the land.”
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asked Gorsuch about a passage in his book “The
Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” which states that “the
intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”
“How could you square that statement with legal abortion?” Durbin asked.
Gorsuch replied that “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 14th Amendment and the book explains that.”
“Do you accept that?” Durbin asked.
“I accept the law of the land, senator, yes,” Gorsuch answered.
On Tuesday, Gorsuch said that Roe v. Wade is “a precedent of the United
States Supreme Court,” but refused to elaborate on whether he would vote
to uphold the ruling as a Supreme Court justice.
Gorsuch also said Tuesday that he would have “walked out the door” if
Trump has asked him to repeal Roe. “That’s not what judges do,” he said.
|
Source: http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03...w-of-the-land/
I maintain that faithful Catholics must contact their senators and
demand a down vote on Gorsuch until he can bring himself to speak his
mind on Roe and toe the line. Else, we will have wasted the outcome of
this election, and the "nuclear option" on a lifetime pick who does not
achieve what we have set out to do.
__________________
You can accomplish more with a kind word and a shillelagh than you can with just a kind word.
|
Apr 5, '17, 9:37 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 16,504
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Gorsuch says that he would have walked out the door if Trump asked him to overturn Roe
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChemicalBean
Oh, it has been the strategy of many in
the Pro-Life movement for a LONG time to populate the SCOTUS with
Justices who are going to overturn Roe. It is used as rationale for
electing politicians to the Presidency and whole parties to government,
and being a single issuer voter, DESPITE ALL OTHER ANTI-LIFE (and
Anti-Catholic Teaching) POLICY. As long as Roe can get overturned and
decisions return to the states, it's OK. It is dragged out every four
years (and in some cases, every two) to shame Catholics into voting GOP
because they have given lip service to the anti-abortion cause.
Here is Gorsuch saying exactly that he believes Roe is settled constitutional law:
Source: http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03...w-of-the-land/
I maintain that faithful Catholics must contact their senators and
demand a down vote on Gorsuch until he can bring himself to speak his
mind on Roe and toe the line. Else, we will have wasted the outcome of
this election, and the "nuclear option" on a lifetime pick who does not
achieve what we have set out to do. |
We do not want activist judges who will rule based on their own
feelings about a situation. We want good jusges who will rule based on
the cases as presented.
There have been SCOTUS rulings overturned before. Given the right case
and the right arguments, Roe v Wade can be overturned, but notnif we
have a bunch of activist judges who do not rule based on the case
presented but on their own ideas.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience."
CS Lewis–God in the Dock, 1948
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment