LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: ACLU National Legal Director: A Trump SCOTUS Nominee Will Move the Court ‘Far to the Right’ of Where America Is
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: https://www.breitbart.com/video/201 ... the-right-of-where-america-is/
Published: Jul 1, 2018
Author: Trent Baker
Post Date: 2018-07-01 17:20:31 by Liberator
Keywords: ACLU, Anti-America, COMMUNISTS
Views: 5074
Comments: 52
During a Saturday debate on MSNBC’s “AM Joy” about Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement and who President Donald Trump will pick as his replacement, ACLU national legal director David Cole warned a Trump selection could move the Supreme Court “far to the right” of American society.
“The key is that Justice Kennedy was who kept the Supreme Court within somewhere within the mainstream of American society,” [ACLU Director] Cole argued. “If Trump gets to appoint another rigid, right-wing ideologue, the court will be far to the right of the country for a generation to come. And that, to me, that’s the key issue. we ought to be thinking about what role this justice is going to play in keeping the Supreme Court within the mainstream of American society.”
(1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Death penalty for abortion practitioners. Attempted murder charges for any elected offficial promoting or voting for abortion. Two strikes you hang. That would be just.
#2. To: Liberator (#0)
ACLU National Legal Director: A Trump SCOTUS Nominee Will Move the Court ‘Far to the Right’ of Where America Is
Damned ACLU, what the Hell do they know about anything?
#3. To: Gatlin, aka ACLU-SHILL (#0) (Edited)
In his role as national legal director, David Cole directs a program that includes approximately 1,400 state and federal lawsuits on a broad range of civil liberties issues. He manages 100 ACLU staff attorneys in New York headquarters, oversees the organization’s U.S. Supreme Court docket, and provides leadership to more than 200 staff attorneys who work in ACLU affiliate offices in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C.
Another 1,700 volunteer cooperating attorneys throughout the country are engaged in ACLU litigation. With an annual headquarters budget of $140 million and more than 1.5 million members, the ACLU is the nation’s largest and oldest civil liberties organization.
Cole has litigated many constitutional cases in the Supreme Court, including:
1) Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman, which extended First Amendment protection to flag burning
2) National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, which challenged political content restriction on NEA funding [for the obscene, the perversity and "Piss on Christ" hate which is masquerading as "Art"]
3) Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the ACLU represented a [fascist-Queer] gay couple refused service by a [Christian] bakery because they [fascist Queers] sought a cake to
celebrate their weddingselectively and politically target a Christian baker as a matter of fascist coercion and bullying.]
Hey, real nice resume. But that's not all.
Your boy, Cole also:
4) Defended for over 21 years a group of Palestinian immigrants whom the government sought to deport for their political [Muzzie Terrorist] affiliations
5)Challengedrestrictions on federally funded AIDS education
6) Obtained an injunction against Randall Terry and Operation Rescue for blocking access to abortion [Pre-Born Murder] providers
7) Freed several Arab and Muslim immigrants JIHADISTS detained on secret evidence(??).
How much do you contribute to the ACLU, Gatlin?
Your ACLU Director *automatically by default" opposes a Trump SCOTUS selection. Wanna know why?
Because this militant homosexual ACLU Director claims any "rigid" interpretation of the US Constitution is OUT OF the "mainstream of American society.” (yeah right -- HA!!)
MOREOVER, The ACLU Director is on record as worrying that President Trump will appoint a "right-wing ideologue" to the Supreme Court.
And yes that's right -- the ACLU and Democrat-Left actually believe judges who interpret the US Constitution based strictly of intent of the Founders are..."IDEOLOGUES".
(On the other hand, the ACLU Director believes judges must necessarily dismiss the Constitutional intent of the Founders and instead apply rulings based on personal/political opinion and "feelings". In other words, your ACLU will be fighting toof-and-nail for the typical Left-Wing Ideologue who ignores the spirit and letter of the US Constitution.
The ACLU: HYPOCRITES. LIARS. ENEMIES OF AMERICA AND LIBERTY.
Dear Messrs. Gatlin and Cole -- hold hands then demand your wedding cake from a MOOSLEM baker. With your box crayons, have at it and synthesize your own Commie-Fascist "Constitution" then in your OWN country.
#4. To: A K A Stone (#1)
Death penalty for abortion practitioners. Attempted murder charges for any elected offficial promoting or voting for abortion. Two strikes you hang. That would be just.
You and I obviously believe abortion is murder. More ambiguous within the first month, but by the time there's a heartbeat the pre-born baby is CLEARLY A LIVING BEING. A human.
I am as outraged as you over the trivialization of abortion and framing of baby-murder as some kind of warped "Inalienable Right" by the Left.
That 1973 SCOTUS decision was A FIX. No organized outage followed because THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA swept any and all public and personal outrage over the decision under the rug.
If there is Justice in THIS world, most of the MSM would be locked up and/or awaiting sentencing for Treason, Sedition, Murder, etc.
#5. To: Liberator (#0)
That goober probably knows less about mainstream American Society than I do about theoretical physics,and if it weren't for the spell checker,I would have misspelled that.
He probably thinks Bernie is a right-winger.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
#6. To: Gatlin (#2)
Damned ACLU, what the Hell do they know about anything?
They know they hate America,and all those Americans running around out there,making their own decisions without even having to ask for approval first.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
#7. To: Liberator (#0)
the ACLU is non-partisan and is known for assembling a broad coalition of conservatives, moderates, and progressives to advance civil liberties throughout the country.
From the ACLU self-description.
May be the funniest thing I have read in a year or more.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
#8. To: Liberator (#3)
Because this militant homosexual ACLU Director
FWIW,he is married to another leftie lawyer that is uglier than he is,and they have two children
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
#9. To: sneakypete (#5)
That goober probably knows less about mainstream American Society than I do about theoretical physics,and if it weren't for the spell checker,I would have misspelled that.
I'd bet you DO know far more about "Theoretical Physics" than this guy knows "Mainstream 'Murica". You can do the math AND engage in common sense. THIS jackazz? Like most Progs, he denies 2+2=4.
(And yeah -- if not for Spell Check, my own spelling would resemble a 6th Grader...)
No doubt -- this ACLU Director (like most Libs in academia and Beltway Bubble-Boys) has ZERO concept of "Mainstream American Society".
Of course the ACLU Director's delusion that defines "American Society" is much the same as those who control the local "news" and advertisement programming here in the NY-Philly area. It's an "America" that's framed through the warped lens of their Lib-World Society where in THAT world, in THEIR alleged minds only women, Latinos, Blacks, Queers, and the occasional fat, stupid dumpy white nerdy guys exist.
This ACLU Fuehrer considers you and basically the rest of us here at LF as various backwards hillbilly-types. Except we do a lot more analyzing and truth-seeking than his rigid ilk do. AND as the last election proved, these Leftist-Progs OVER-estimate their own numbers while vastly UNDER-estimating we "rubes".
The ACLU #1 Goal in the USA is anything BUT "Liberty"; It's CONTROL. Then BONDAGE.
#10. To: sneakypete (#5)
He probably thinks Bernie is a right-winger.
Maybe a toss up. Bernie is waaaay out there.
#11. To: sneakypete, Gatlin (#6)
They know they hate America,and all those Americans running around out there,making their own decisions without even having to ask for approval first.
Roger that.
If there's anything these people hate it's INDEPENDENCE. COMMON LAW/COMMON SENSE. (and the US Constitution.)
#12. To: sneakypete (#7)
the ACLU is non-partisan and is known for assembling a broad coalition of conservatives, moderates, and progressives to advance civil liberties throughout the country.From the ACLU self-description.
May be the funniest thing I have read in a year or more.
Chutzpah to the nth degree. They don't seem to have much of a problem with LYING.
All the ACLU forgot from their hysterical "Get-To-Know-Us" brochure was, "REALLY!! WE WERE SERIOUS!!"
#13. To: Liberator (#0)
ACLU national legal director David Cole warned a Trump selection could move the Supreme Court “far to the right” of American society.
Can't he wait until Trump nominates the guy? Geez Louise. We're only talking about a week.
Then, with the name of the nominee and a voting record, he could make the claim with a little more credibility.
#14. To: sneakypete (#8)
FWIW,he is married to another leftie lawyer that is uglier than he is,and they have two children
Noooo....Tell me they didn't breed.
Nothing ugler-to-the-bone, in & out than progressive/leftists. (Are you *sure* the thing "he" married was a "she"??)
Can't make this stuff up.
#15. To: Liberator (#0)
a Trump selection could move the Supreme Court “far to the right” of American society.
Far to the right of the society that elected Trump? We can dream, can't we?
#16. To: misterwhite (#13)
Can't he wait until Trump nominates the guy?
Nope.
The "war" MUST begin way before the starting gun. (ooops)
Then, with the name of the nominee and a voting record, he could make the claim with a little more credibility.
No voting record needed to nix whomever.
These lunatics will find no judge acceptable other than another Ruth Bader-Witchberg. OR Satan (D) himself if nominated.
#17. To: misterwhite (#15)
Far to the right of the society that elected Trump? We can dream, can't we?
Yeah. Isn't that the same "American Society" this dolt claimed HIS ilk were in charge of?
According to ACLU-Leftist types, I dunno how anyone could possibly be further "right" than Trump, aka "Hitler".
This gummint *could* swing way right if the Left keeps up their insanity. We dreamt that Trump would beat Hitlery; I say let's tune the "dream" dial up to "11".
#18. To: Liberator (#4)
More ambiguous within the first month, but by the time there's a heartbeat the pre-born baby is CLEARLY A LIVING BEING. A human.
When do you believe life begins?
#19. To: Liberator, A K A Stone (#4)
Medical science has shown that a person who has been indisputably declared legally dead and clinically dead by doctors can still have a heartbeat for weeks, months or even sometimes longer. Furthermore, there are biblical scholars who believe that it is not the heartbeat that determines a living being, it is their breathing. They base their conclusion on scripture: ... but by the time there's a heartbeat the pre-born baby is CLEARLY A LIVING BEING. A human.
Clearly, CLEARLY....you say? And the LORD God formed man ofthe dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul - King James Bible.
#20. To: Gatlin (#18)
When do you believe life begins?
Life begins technically AT CONCEPTION.
Btw -- my comment of "ambiguity within the first month" was AS PERCEIVED through the eyes of anyone who is trying to discern exactly when "LIFE" at minimum begins.
You obviously are unable to interpret my intent. And never are.
#21. To: Gatlin, A K A Stone (#19)
For YOU to quote Scripture as a standing supporter of pro-Abortion/pro-infanticide ACLU is the height of chutzpah and hypocrisy.
Even the Devil quotes Scripture.
Clearly, CLEARLY....["living"]you say?
Medical science has shown that a person who has been indisputably declared legally dead and clinically dead by doctors can still have a heartbeat for weeks, months or even sometimes longer.
You DARE to compare the heartbeat of a living, GROWING, HEALTHY infant in the womb...to someone artificially kept alive via LIFE-SUPPORT EQUIPMENT?
You mock God, you subvert Scripture, and lie and call it "truth". May God help you before you face judgment. You are truly deceived.
Furthermore, there are biblical scholars who believe that it is not the heartbeat that determines a living being, it is their breathing.
Don't try citing "Bible Scholars" to support your ACLU-mirrored perspective on the matter of Infanticide and life exterminated IN THE WOMB, ok?
#22. To: Liberator (#20)
You allegedly have a brain. Use what part of it is still functioning to do “straight talk” and make your point by communicating effectively. A most important element of communicating effectively is to ensure that when conveying information you have a logical way to present your message so that it will be clearly understand and no one needs to “interpret your intent.” It is asinine of you to expect anyone to mentally dissect your message looking for some intent or clarification. There are logical ways to present information and you need to learn them and used them when communicating with someone above your intelligence level. You obviously are unable to interpret my intent.
Why do I NEED to ‘interpret your intent?”
#23. To: Liberator (#21)
What does he say when you listen to him? Even the Devil quotes Scripture.
Interesting, most interesting.
#24. To: Gatlin (#23)
What does he say when you listen to him [the Devil]?
The presumption is that YOU are the one who has that direct line of communication.
#25. To: Gatlin (#22)
Why do I NEED to ‘interpret your intent?”
It's called, "Communication"and "Understanding". Neither of which you are very good at.
A most important element of communicating effectively is to ensure that when conveying information you have a logical way to present your message so that it will be clearly understand and no one needs to “interpret your intent.”
Only a cut & paste would allow you to remotely describe this dynamic.
Be that as it may, "logic", "understanding" and "truth" are the elements of an honest mutual conversation. Unfortunately, you are no longer (If ever) able to engage to any intellectual degree of these three basic elements.
Sad.
#26. To: Liberator (#24)
Presumption is a word and methodology you should advoid using. Presumption is very closely related to the word, assumption. It tjerefore has the connotation of taking something for granted while not having sufficient evidence in advance of facts or denying available facts. The use of the word presumption suggests an immature attitude of arrogance and an display of ignorance. This idea is found in several Bible passages and is most closely associated with arrogance and pride. The presumption is ...
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9 NKJ)
#27. To: Liberator (#25)
It’s [intrepation of Intent] called, "Communication" and "Understanding". All too often something goes astray when we need to interpret the intent on someone’s communication. When one person intends to say one thing and then the other person hears something else, then conflict, misunderstandings and frustration ensues. Interpreting intent can cause a problem in communication and result in a lack of understanding. Bad. Communicating more clearly and effectively requires learning and using some important skills. Effective communications does not require the “interpretation of intent.” Why do I NEED to ‘interpret your intent?”
No. It’s not. Interpretation of intent is called “the need to explain the meaning of something.” Interpreting intent is definitely not communicating.
#28. To: Gatlin (#26)
This idea is found in several Bible passages and is most closely associated with arrogance and pride.
Tone Deaf. That is you, Gatlin.
You don't see or sense the irony of YOU of all people exploiting the Word of God (and Bible whose Gospel and wisdom you DON'T believe) to try and score a debate point (that you won't be scoring no matter what.)
It is further foolishness that you scour Scriptural tract in desperation in hopes of "winning" an argument. You're actually engaging in STEALING the Lord's word in an effort to help buttress untruthful intent.
THAT said, IF it helps you accidentally learn any of God's wisdom or Gospel, then it's a good thing.
#29. To: Liberator (#25)
Only a cut & paste would allow you to remotely describe this dynamic. And you of course noticed that you needed no interpretation of intent to fully understand the meaning. See how easy it can be when there in no need to interpret. A most important element of communicating effectively is to ensure that when conveying information you have a logical way to present your message so that it will be clearly understand and no one needs to “interpret your intent.”
Thank you for your kind compliment myoutstanding communication skill.
#30. To: Gatlin (#29)
Thank you for your kind compliment myoutstanding communication skill.
Memory of propaganda by rote isn't a "skill"; It demonstrated your excellent ability to embrace your cult's indoctrination.
I'd even bet you still recall with complete clarity the coffee preference of your superiors from the 1950s and 60s.
Your loyalty to your cult, unquestioned obedience to your authoritarian overlords, and robotic reflex to "just follow orders" is to be commended. Zombies make the best "soldiers".
#31. To: Liberator (#28)
You are a very narrow-minded opinionated person filled with hate towards anyone who does not agree with you. You are conceitedly assertive and dogmatic in your opinions.....constantly trying to force your opinions onto others. You don't see or sense the irony of YOU of all people exploiting the Word of God (and Bible whose Gospel and wisdom you DON'T believe.
No, the irony is that you do no know what I believe and don’t believe. We have never had a discussion on my religious beliefs. You have never asked me and I have never told you. Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts. Proverbs 21:2 - King James Bible.
I will leave you with that thought ...
#32. To: Gatlin (#31)
You do no know what I believe and don’t believe. We have never had a discussion on my religious beliefs.
We don't need any official conversation for me to know at which direction and position you represent.
Between LP and LF there is more than ample circumstantial evidence as well as your own testimony that defines and projects what you appear to believe/don't believe. But it's only my own subjective opinion, isn't it?
There is a Final Arbiter of who, what, and where you wind up. Has nothing to do with me.
You are a very narrow-minded opinionated person filled with hate towards anyone who does not agree with you. You are conceitedly assertive and dogmatic in your opinions.....constantly trying to force your opinions onto others.
Pure projection. To the nth degree.
And no btw, I do not "hate" you. As I'd stated up-thread, you have a mistaken notion/perceptions of truth and understanding of things. That opinion has only been reinforced by this latest post.
For the record, you have ALWAYS been free to state AND believe anything you want. Including your delusion that you have somehow, some way been a victim of coercion.
For the further record, for wisdom, honesty, and righteousness I shall continue to believe the word of God and heed his disciples.
What I will NOT do is rely on or respect any lecture from usurpers of Scripture, authoritarian statists, and secular supporters of the anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-America ACLU.
#33. To: Liberator, A K A Stone, Gatlin (#32)
What I will NOT do is rely on or respect any lecture from usurpers of Scripture, authoritarian statists, and secular supporters of the anti-Christian, anti- God, anti-America ACLU.
EXCLUSIVE: A rector who marched against Trump, gay blessings, gun control, Muslim outreach and 'climate crisis' solar panels on the roof: Meet Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's ultra-liberal church
{ golf clap } for the Golf Hat "conservatives".
#34. To: VxH (#33)
SO Sick...
There is a point at which one can NOT sentence another based on indirect association down the line.
Q: Does Neil Gorsuch STILL attend this church?
Q2: Is Gorsuch a Constitutionalist?
(Frankly, the man has always worried me.)
#35. To: VxH, Liberator, A K A Stone (#33)
What I will NOT do is rely on or respect any lecture from usurpers of Scripture, authoritarian statists, and secular supporters of the anti-Christian, anti- God, anti- America ACLU.
“All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.” - 2 Timothy 3:16 [New Living Translation].
| Jesus, while preaching one of the greatest sermons ever heard, said in Matthew 5:44-45, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” This makes for great preaching but hard living. How do I love someone whom I consider to be my enemy? There is a good chance that you will not be able to change the heart of your enemy, but there is one thing you have control over — your heart towards them. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, while teaching his children about hate, in his book “10 Conversations You Need To Have With Your Children” says, “If you treat someone lovingly, even if you feel no real compassion for them, even if you feel contempt for them, you are practicing kindness, and you will begin to feel kindness.” The part of the equation that is most likely to change is you, not your enemy. The more that you treat those people in your life who least deserve it with compassion, the more your heart will change towards them. Hatred does nothing to the person that we hate. It only darkens our soul. A. W. Tozer says in The Pursuit of God, “Hate eats on the soul. To get free of hatred is like being healed of cancer.” We experience so much freedom when we can put our hate aside and love people the way that Jesus loved them and see them as image bearers of God. Not only that, our lives change when we can pray for those who persecute us. Tozer also says, “We cannot pray in love and live in hate and still think we are worshiping God.” Praying for those who persecute us changes our heart and allows us to worship God. We experience so much freedom when we can put our hate aside and love people the way that Jesus loved them and see them as image bearers of God. In the parable of the good Samaritan, Jesus expressed to the “expert in the law” that loving those people who were not like him was the true mark of the person who loved God. I know it is cliché, but if we want to change the world, it begins with love. Jesus lived his life with compassion, and love and calls us to do the same. It starts with our love for God. The overflow of that love for God is a love for others, even people who, on the surface, we may want to hate. We are never more like Christ than when we love the unlovable and show compassion to those, who by all rights, we should hate. When we do that, we convey dignity and worth to those people and we exemplify who Christ is. Rabbi Boteach goes on to say, “Every human being has value, and every human encounter is a fresh chance to let him know it.” Every time we have interactions both good and bad we have an opportunity to be Jesus to them. I was recently in Walmart, and I watched a lady who was frustrated and in a hurry berate a cashier for not double bagging her groceries. She was incredibly angry and scowled at everything he did. I could see it in his eyes — he felt utterly worthless. As he finished and began scanning my groceries, I felt such compassion for him. Here is a person attempting to do his job the best that he can, and he has been reduced to something less than human. I looked at him and said, “People can be so mean sometimes. Thanks for taking care of me today.” It was just a simple gesture, but his eyes lit up, and I could tell that a part of his dignity was restored. Every person you encounter from the Walmart cashier to the financial planner has value, and every chance we get to interact with them is a chance to remind them that they are created in the image of God, and we need to remind them of that as often as possible. So, what can you do? |
#36. To: VxH, Liberator, A K A Stone (#33)
Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch attends a liberal church. Should conservatives be concerned? As President Donald Trump has nominated Tenth Circuit Court Judge Gorsuch to fulfill the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court, many conservatives have praised the selection while others are weary of the fact that Gorsuch attends a very liberal Episcopal church in Colorado. After the 49-year-old Gorsuch was nominated to replace late Justice Antonin Scalia on Jan. 31, scores of evangelical and pro-life leaders called the nomination a fulfillment of Trump's promise to nominate an originalist, pro-life conservative justice in the mold of Scalia, saying that he has an unwavering judicial philosophy of interpreting the U.S. Constitution as originally written. Many praised the fact that Gorsuch sided in favor of religious liberties in high- profile cases such as Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor and even dissented in a 2016 ruling favoring Planned Parenthood. However, multiple reports have pointed out that Gorsuch and his wife attend St. John's, Boulder — a liberal Episcopal church headed by a very liberal, pro-LGBT female rector named Rev. Susan Springer. Opposition to Gorsuch's affiliation with St. John's was voiced even before he was nominated. Christian conservative activist and lawyer Andy Schlafly, the son of the late pro- life leader Phyllis Schlafly, voiced his concern over the possible nomination of Gorsuch in an email sent in November with the subject line: "veto these Sup. Ct. nominee candidates." Schlafly wrote that Gorsuch "probably would NOT be pro-life on the Supreme Court" and included him on his list of "unacceptable nominees." "Gorsuch's Episcopalian church has declared its 'unequivocal opposition' to pro- life laws and he has said nothing publicly pro-life," Schlafly wrote in the email. Others, including journalist Julia Duin, who previously wrote for the conservative news outlet The Washington Times, have brought up the issue of Gorsuch's membership at St. John's. "Think about that for a moment. If this man is the frightening conservative that some on the Left are already alleging him to be, there's no way he'd be Episcopalian, much less at a woman-priested church," Duin wrote. "The Episcopal Church, for anyone who's not been following religion trends in recent decades, has been careening to the theological and cultural left for years and its membership statistics show it. Thousands have left TEC and joined alternative Anglican churches." "A Google search shows there's an Anglican church in Boulder that the Gorsuch family could be attending if they so desired," she continued. "So, the fact that the judge and his family has remained at St. John's says something." Should the fact that the Gorsuches attends St. John's, Boulder really matter to conservatives looking to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court who has shown throughout his legal career to be an originalist who interprets the law as it is written? "Ultimately, what this comes down to is that conservatives are looking for a justice that has an originalist constitutional theory as far as looking at what the Constitution says," Jeff Walton, the communications manager for the Washington, D.C.-based think tank Institute on Religion & Democracy, told The Christian Post. "If Gorsuch subscribes to that method of reading the Constitution and practicing law, then it doesn't really matter what church he goes to because his personal views may be different than what he advances as far as legal theory." Walton understands how liberal St. John's, Boulder is, pointing out that the church is one of four Episcopal congregations in Colorado that gives part of its budget every year to the "unofficial LGBT caucus of the Episcopal Church," Integrity USA. "There is no question that it is a Lefty parish," Walton explained. "Out of curiosity, I looked on their webpage. They have some anti-gun rights stuff. The pastor there, she was at the Women's March in Denver. There were all kinds of red flags. But just because she has those views as the rector, doesn't mean that everybody who participates there has those views." "At IRD, we have supporters who are very conservative but go to churches that have more liberal clergy," Walton added. "The liberal clergy will occasionally spout off about something and these congregants will roll their eyes at it and let it wash over and it is not that big of a deal. That may be the situation [at St. John's]." Walton pointed out that there are a number of other prominent conservatives — including Fox News correspondent Tucker Carlson, former Republican Indiana Sen. Dan Coats and former White House Chief of Staff under Ronald Reagan, James Baker — who attend Episcopal churches. "Tucker Carlson, who is no liberal, he goes to a rather liberal parish in Georgetown," Walton stated. "That is just sometimes how the cookie crumbles. It wouldn't prevent me from, as a conservative, supporting this guy as a nominee for the court." "I think that while being a member of St. John's Boulder would give many conservatives pause, ultimately, that is not as important as his ruling for the Tenth Circuit on the Hobby Lobby case or some of the other ones, which were very clear," Walton continued. "Some of the things he has written about, especially problems with euthanasia, that counts more than where he is a member." Walton added that he learned through one of his friends who is an Episcopal priest that St. John's is the "social parish of Boulder." "This is where the professional class goes to church. In those sorts of parishes, the political sentiments of the rector don't carry as far as they might in another parish because people are not going there primarily for political organizing purposes," Walton explained. "They are there because it is basically sort of a class thing." Richard Land, the president of the Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina and former president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told CP that it is "irrelevant" and may even be "unconstitutional" to take into account what kind of church Gorsuch attends. "Since Judge Gorsuch is so well known to be a strict constructionist and original- intent jurist, his religious views are particularly irrelevant for his qualifications to be a justice on the Supreme Court," Land, who is also CP's executive editor, said. "He has said repeatedly that any judge who is always happy with his opinions is not even a judge. A judge is to interpret the law as it is written, not as he might like for it to be." "Secondly of course, Article VI of the Constitution says that there will be no religious test for office," Land, who serves on Trump's evangelical advisory board, added. "So, making his religious affiliation an issue would arguably be unconstitutional." Land said he is confident that Gorsuch would be a strict constructionist if confirmed to the Supreme Court. "If all of our judges had interpreted the law, rather than trying to make it from the bench, there personal views and religious views would be irrelevant," Land asserted. https://www.christianpost.com/news/does-neil-gorsuchs-liberal-church- matter-174630/
#37. To: VxH, Liberator, A K A Stone (#36)
Another Justice Like Gorsuch, Please
#38. To: VxH, Liberator, A K A Stone (#37)
Justice Gorsuch confirms conservatives' hopes, liberals' fears in first year on Supreme Court Neil Gorsuch had been a member of the Supreme Court for exactly 11 weeks when he made clear in a single day what type of justice he would be. The court struck down an Arkansas law that treated same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples on their children's birth certificates. Gorsuch dissented. The court refused to consider a challenge to the Department of Veterans Affairs' system for evaluating disability claims. Gorsuch dissented. The court declined to hear a challenge to a California law limiting who can carry a concealed gun in public. Gorsuch dissented. And the court turned aside a challenge to the meager sum Mississippi paid when it converted a former landowner's property into a park. Gorsuch said the justices should hear a similar case "at its next opportunity." Thus it was that on the last day of its 2016-17 term — as the court addressed gay rights, government power, gun ownership and government takings — Neil McGill Gorsuch announced to the legal world that he would not go along to get along. "He came to the court more ready to jump into the deep end than a lot of recent nominees," says Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Gorsuch has been jumping in ever since. “What you’re seeing is a justice who believes the court has a responsibility to decide cases," says Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society and an outside adviser to President Trump on judicial nominations. "I don’t see in Justice Gorsuch the same kind of incrementalism that some of the other justices have.” In the nine months since that declaration of independence, Gorsuch has receded from the headlines he commanded as Trump's first Supreme Court nominee. But he has not retreated from his core beliefs that the court should favor the words contained in the Constitution and federal laws over the supposed expertise of the federal bureaucracy. Nor has he disappeared from the public eye following some early, often unfavorable reviews: that he was impudent toward colleagues, pedantic in his rhetoric, and tone- deaf to criticism that he was cozying up to conservatives. "Tonight, I can report that a person can be both a publicly committed originalist and textualist and be confirmed to the Supreme Court," he told a Federalist Society audience in November. Living up to expectations
President Trump's selection of federal appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court was but the first of many judicial appointments. (Photo: Carolyn Kaster, AP)
It helps to have a vacancy — in this case, one created by the unexpected death in 2016 of the high court's conservative leader, Antonin Scalia, who brought adherence to the Constitution and legal texts into the mainstream.
It took 14 months for the White House and Congress to settle on a successor. President Barack Obama's nominee, federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland, was blocked by Senate Republicans before Trump nominated Gorsuch from a list of 21 potential choices on Jan. 31, 2017. It took another 10 weeks, $17 million in outside spending and a Senate rules change to win confirmation without the 60 votes previously required to reach the Senate floor.
Despite the histrionics, Gorsuch emerged from the confirmation battle relatively unscathed, a tribute to his impeccable credentials as a Denver-based judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. He had degrees from Columbia, Harvard Law and Oxford and a high-level stint at the Department of Justice. His mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, had been in President Ronald Reagan's Cabinet.
Gorsuch took his seat four months short of his 50th birthday, becoming the first former Supreme Court law clerk to serve alongside his ex-boss, Justice Anthony Kennedy. In short order, he was peppering lawyers with questions such as "Where in the statute is that provided?" and admonishments such as "I look at the text of the Constitution, always a good place to start."
"I really don’t think we could have seen a justice any more committed to textualism and originalism than he is," says Randy Barnett, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. "He has lived up to very high expectations.”
Liberals saw his loud entrance differently, decrying his legal philosophy, his behavior on the bench, and his writing style. Ian Millhiser, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, warned early on that "Gorsuch will make liberals miss Scalia."
In his initial opinions, concurrences and dissents, Gorsuch has done just that. When the court allowed part of Trump's immigration travel ban against majority-Muslim countries to be implemented temporarily, he said he would have green-lighted it in full. When the court ruled that a Missouri church can receive public funds for playground resurfacing, he said religious discrimination is unconstitutional "on the playground or anywhere else."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed friend-of-the-court briefs in 10 cases decided since Gorsuch came on the court last April, and he's taken their side nine times, along with most of his colleagues.
"It does seem that he is being that reliable, pro-corporate vote that business thought he would be," says Elizabeth Wydra, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center.
Gorsuch has teamed up with Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's most conservative member, in several dissents. Last year, the pair unsuccessfully urged their colleagues to consider lifting a ban on unlimited contributions to political parties. This year, they failed to convince the court to consider limiting administrative agencies' authority to interpret their own regulations.
But when the court refused to hear a challenge to California's 10-day waiting period for gun purchases, Gorsuch surprised some conservatives by not joining Thomas' lone dissent. The decision came just days after a gunman killed 17 students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.
Key vote on major cases
Justice Neil Gorsuch descends the steps of the Supreme Court with Chief Justice John Roberts after his official investiture ceremony in June. (Photo: Michael Owens, USAT)
If Gorsuch shied away in that case, he hasn't been shy often.
He wrote a lengthy, 12- page dissent to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's opinion in the first case he heard, suggesting that the court "just follow the words of the statute as written." He said Kennedy's landmark 2015 opinion declaring same-sex marriage constitutional did not address — "let alone clearly" — the birth certificate challenge brought by two lesbian couples in Arkansas.
His willingness to speak at Trump International Hotel last September sparked objections from some ethics experts who noted a case involving foreign payments there could one day reach the high court. Gorsuch used the occasion to urge that fellow conservatives "cherish the din of democracy."
That din hangs over major cases to be decided by the end of June involving the power of public employee unions, the religious rights of same-sex marriage objectors, partisan efforts by states to influence elections and other issues. Gorsuch's vote could be critical in several of them — and that worries liberals.
“So far he’s staked out extremely conservative positions," says Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice. “He is as ultra-conservative as we predicted he would be.”
Gorsuch's efforts, however, may be driven more by judicial philosophy than ideology. His devotion to the balance of powers outlined in the Constitution, for instance, will make him a force on the court for cutting back on the power of what conservatives call the "administrative state."
Two cases granted for next year — presumably with Gorsuch's support — may advance that cause. One questions the attorney general's authority to decide whether a sex offender law's registration rules should apply to those convicted before it was enacted. The other challenges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's power to preserve habitat for a rare breed of frog without judicial review.
“I think Justice Gorsuch would want to see courts be more skeptical of how much power the bureaucracy has, and to require Congress to pass more precise laws," says Josh Blackman, an associate law professor at South Texas College of Law who follows the Supreme Court closely.
On that subject, Gorsuch is ahead of Scalia, who once put more faith in the executive and legislative branches. But in other ways — from his core legal philosophy to his supreme self-confidence — he is very much like his predecessor on the court.
"Lots of people were painting him as some sort of monster," says Carrie Severino, chief counsel at the Judicial Crisis Network, which spearheaded the effort to get Gorsuch confirmed last year. "There hasn't been a dramatic shift on the court, and that shouldn't be surprising."
#39. To: Liberator, VxH (#34)
Frankly, [Gorsuch] has always worried me.
You worry about too many things and that will cause the response in your body to increase your cortisol levels. Bad news. An increase in cortisol level is definitely something you don’t need. It compromises your immune system and causes you to become more susceptible to disease. A relationship has been shown between increased cortisol levels to diabetes, osteoporosis, and heart disease. Furthermore, worry can cause burnout, deep depression, bipolar disorder and panic disorder. Face it, Sport, you need to stop worrying. If you don’t stop worrying, you’re gonna die....DIE. So, stop your worrying. Realize that no matter what happens, you have the ability to address it. So start now. Lighten up ...
#40. To: Gatlin, Liberator, VxH (#39)
Sport, you need to stop worrying.
With 21, 000, 000, 000, 000 USD in federal debt? Who will repay this sum of intentional, political neglectful BS?
You?
#41. To: buckeroo (#40)
Who will repay this sum of intentional, political neglectful BS? You? So, let’s go see how libertarians would pay down the federal debt. Scratching Head ... How do the libertarian solutions sound to you? With 21, 000, 000, 000, 000 USD in federal debt?
Nah, not me. The few millions I could try to knock off of that would not mean squat. How would you, as a Libertarian, pay down the federal debt?
Hmmm....
.
.
.
Comments (42 - 52) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]