On day two of his confirmation hearing, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch said he respected the precedent set by Roe v. Wade but refused to call it a “super precedent” when pressed by a pro-abortion senator.
According to the Boston Herald, the question of how he might rule on abortion-related cases was on the top of the list of inquiries on this second day of hearings concerning the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA), asked Gorsuch to discuss Roe v. Wade and the Colorado-born judge would only say that he had no intention of weighing in with his personal views of the case – or any other Supreme Court decision – in his confirmation hearing.
He gave similar answers to questions about other important cases on such subjects as guns and campaign finance.
Gorsuch said if he were to discuss those cases, “I would be tipping my hand and suggesting to litigants that I have already made up my mind about cases.”
He added: “I think that’s the beginning of the end of the independent judiciary.”
As Fox News reports, he told Grassley: “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 …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 pounced on the subject, citing the importance of the issue since, she said, President Trump “said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe.”
Feinstein asked if Gorsuch considered Roe v. Wade to be a “super precedent” – meaning a decision that cannot be overturned.
“It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that,” Gorsuch answered.
Feinstein quickly added: “Yes. Dozens.”
Gorsuch remained unmoved, and reiterated his intention not to reveal how he would rule on any potential issues that might come before the Court.
“I have offered no promises on how I’d rule, in any case, to anyone and I don’t think it’s appropriate for a judge to do so,” Gorsuch said.
Feinstein has already said that she will probably not vote for Gorsuch because he wrote in his book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, that “the intentional taking of a human life by private persons is always wrong.”
“ . . .This language has been interpreted by both pro-life and pro-choice organizations to mean he would overturn Roe,” she said.
Justice Gorsuch is currently a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and has served there since he was appointed by President George W. Bushin 2006 and confirmed unanimously by the Senate.
According to LifeNews.com, pro-life legal scholars who know him best say he is a strong originalist, believing that the Constitution should only be interpreted as the Founding Fathers intended, which is why he is considered to be a successor of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
“One of the biggest problems pro-life advocates have with the Supreme Court is that it invented a so-called right to abortion in Roe v. Wade,” LifeNews reports. “But Gorsuch’s writings indicate he opposes that kind of thinking.”
They cite a 2005 National Review article in which Gorsuch wrote that liberals rely on the courts too much to make social policy.
“This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose . . . . [R]eal-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce–are not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.”
He went on to criticize activists for relying on the judicial system “as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.”
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace® http://www.womenofgrace.com
