Can We Trust Gorsuch On Women's Rights?
Yesterday Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer signaled that Senate Democrats would try to filibuster Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.
"I cannot support Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court. His nomination will have a cloture vote. He will have to earn 60 votes for confirmation."
If Schumer is right, Senate Republicans will have to decide whether they want to go "nuclear" -- blow up the filibuster and hold a straight simple-majority vote on Gorsuch.
A lot is at stake here - especially for women's rights.
If you listen to the media, they'd have you believe that Neil Gorsuch is someone who, while conservative, is still a lawyer's lawyer -- a reasonable guy. And then you look at his actual positions, and he comes off looking like a hardcore reactionary. So who is this guy?
I think most Americans who are generally aware of politics first heard of Gorsuch during the Hobby Lobby birth control mandate case when he essentially said that corporations are capable of religious beliefs. If he's confirmed, Gorsuch could very well decide the fate of Roe v. Wade. This was his answer during his confirmation hearings when California Senator Dianne Feinstein asked him about abortion:
"Sen. Feinstein: Do you view Roe has having super precedent?
Judge Gorsuch: Well, Senator, super precedent is a...
Sen. Feinstein: In numbers, 44...
Judge Gorsuch: It has been reaffirmed many times. I can say that, yes.
Sen. Feinstein: Yes, dozens."
That's a very ambiguous answer. Can we trust Gorsuch on women's rights?
No, he's Bannon's Trojan horse for 'deconstruction of administrative state' by reversing Chevron rule of deference to agency findings, women's rights will be trampled as he's already shown in his many dissents and infamous concurrences. He's a bloodless, pedantic ideologue Libertarian member of the right wing Federalist Society.
Good question why Reid did not use the nuclear option,
Now that the repubs have it why should they not use it?
Gorsuch is for equal rights for all Americans. Period. He has proven it over and over in his career. It is clear he will follow the law not a political agenda. So of course he isn't good for the Democrats.
Kend : It appears your alt right reality conveniently disregards our First Amendment. If congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, then certainly a member of the judicial branch shall not be allowed to manipulate law to favor a particular religion either.
That would also apply to Betsy DeVos diverting public school funding to build her personal vision of "God's Kingdom." I'm still waiting for the United Federation of Teachers to file a lawsuit regarding the current taxpayer funding being diverted to anti science-pro superstition schools.
The First Amendment is quite clear.
It seems you are leaving out the rest of the Claus.
"nor prohibit the free exercise of". It sure sounds like your ilk wants to tell people that they must practice their religion according to your (the left's) standards.
Women's rights Thom? We all know you mean the legal ability to kill a human being while in the womb. That means you are pro-abortion.
If that Republican gets in the Supreme Court, it will give a whole new meaning to your book 'Screwed'. Being republican means you only care about the rich, and screw the average and poor people any way you can.
No one is "pro" abortion, and no one's tax money goes to a woman who must make a difficult choice about her own body. That decision is nobody else's business, especially the smug "ilk" who wants to tell people that they must practice their lives according to (the right's) hypocritical standards.
Neither should anyone's tax money support a delusional, violent, so-called "religion" that brainwashes children at indoctrination centers called charter schools, and that believes insane nonsense, such as a clump of tissue is a human being. That means fundamentalist Christianists are pro whack jobs.
Deepspace, come on tax payers fund planed parenthood, who fund abortions. Also if you are in a insurance pool that funds abortions then your costs are slightly higher so again to a small degree you are funding them as well.
Just because your religion is against aborting babies doesn't mean you are at war with women. That is ridiculous.
10 k give me one example where Gorsuch made a decision based on religion instead of law. Good luck.
For the record I am for choice but some states allow it way to late in the term in my opinion. I am with Trump that this should be a state decision. Not the fed.
I guess you didn't go to school, otherwise, "believes that insane nonsense, such as a clump of tissue is a human being". You would know, every living thing starts out as a "clump of tissue" and grows into a representative of their species, unless that " clump of tissue" is terminated.
What has been the Democrats' agenda for the poor over the last 20 years, including many of those who can't work (health, etc.)? The Clinton administration ended actual welfare aid, signed onto NAFTA (leaving more in poverty), and took the first steps to similarly "reform" Social Security, targeting the disabled. While Obama did an outstanding job of job creation, US corporations have been shipping out jobs since the 1980s. The last I heard, there are 7 jobs for every ten jobless Americans. What do Democrats say to the three who are left out?
Incorrect. There is no taxpayer funding for abortions. The primary focus of Planned Parenthood is to make birth control available to low-income people. Beyond this, it does also provide such things as breast cancer screening.
Give us an example.
I don't get any of this
Appears like navel gazing
The US has a population of ~400 mil and this blog is making claims that have absolutely no relevance to humanity within the current estimated population of ~6 billion
Get off your horses folks
A lot of women abort
And, I know a lot who have out SE Asia way
Men need to take more responsibility for the outcome of their lust
Come on, taxpayers should fund Planned Parenthood, as 97% of their healthcare includes vital medical services that are desperately needed by women and that are not abortions. It is already stipulated by federal law that zero taxes pay for Planned Parenthood's abortion services, which are funded from other sources and cost taxpayers nothing.
Also, if you have a problem (You should!) with predacious private insurance companies arbitrarily raising their rates for whatever happens to be their latest excuse du jour, take it up with their board or the CEO in the penthouse on the sixty-fourth floor of their glass tower. Good luck...
Chasing your correlation-without-causation logic deeper into the rabbit hole, buying a candy bar from a store whose owner may have, for instance, donated money to Planned Parenthood, one could say, "so again to a small degree you are funding them [abortions] as well." It's just so damn hard living in a country that's not a theocracy!
"War with women" is phraseology that you inserted into this thread, so, on that point anyway, you are arguing with yourself. People are free to believe in whatever crazy-ass religion they want; however, when fanatics try to pass legislation that imposes their weird belief system on others who don't share the delusion, then it does become a war -- a religious war ...one that they started! Just so you know, there is no counter-legislative proposal that would force a woman to get an abortion.
Actually, I was raised an ardent Catholic and later attended a Maryknoll seminary for two years before joining the Army -- a study in opposites -- then, a couple more years at a layman's college. But, neither here nor there, is the unfortunate conditioning of the past.
This highly contentious argument can be boiled down to one existential question upon which to ponder: When does an individual's life force -- that essence of spirit some call a "soul," which animates one as a unique, living being as opposed to a clump of mindless, unviable tissue -- actually enter the body? Most Christian religions teach that it is at the moment of conception, an extremist concept found nowhere in the traditional versions of the Bible, which purports to be the final arbiter of Truth.
What the Bible does say is that "life" (not as hard to define as "soul") begins with the first breath and ends with the last breath. (Psalms 33:6; Ezekiel 37 9-10, 13-14; Job 34: 14-15; etc., etc.)
In fact, the Good ol' Book explains when, why, and how abortions (Oh, the horror!) should be performed in Numbers 5:11-31, and what punishments should be exacted for not following said procedure -- a mere matter of Old Testament justice (e.g., an eye for an eye), adultery, and property law, certainly not a matter of the "eternal" soul, since a zygote or a fetus that has not received the "breath of life" is therefore not "alive."
Anti-choice Bible thumpers and other crazies may cobble together as many countervailing, out-of-context passages and hooey as they want, but they will not disprove the salient theme in their own so-called sacred book that life begins with the first breath.
Of course, that's just a matter of personal belief. At least the Supreme Court forbade abortion after the viability of the fetus, which seems eminently fair-minded and rational.
If I were a free-agent soul floating around in the ethereal ether waiting for the next rebirth, and my target fetus was miscarried or aborted, well then, damn, I guess the procurement secretary for the Grand Puh Pah Overlord of the Universe, whatever, will just have to find a different lil' thumb-sucker -- please, please, please not of Republican parents!
...And, preferably, on a planet where the dominate species is smart enough to avoid warfare, use green energy, keep money out of politics, and enjoys actual representative democracy that is guided by natural compassion and empathy rather than artificial belief systems, selfcenteredness, and greed.
Praise the Overlord! Make Planet Zorbia Great Again! Wait a minute ...it's already great!
"Men need to take more responsibility for the outcome of their lust"
Hah! Exactly! If men got pregnant, abortion wouldn't be an issue.
I heard Bernie talking about the conversation he had with Gorsuch in his office, He can't be trusted with individuals' rights. He can only be trusted with the rights of businesses, corporations, and banks. He's answering questions the way he is because he doesn't want to show the American people the real Neil Gorsuch. Inside his head is a far right wingnut. If he gave honest answers the people would rise up against him like they did about the so-called health bill. They can't get him to give straight answers. He has a judicial record that shows what a low down human being he is. Al Frankin called him out on one of his bad rulings. This Justice will be anything but Just.
Yeah, I heard that interview with Bernie also. Thank God for truth tellers, and goddamn the liars!
Books, have been written on when life begins. My guess is it's an attempt to alleviate guilt of some sort. The simple fact is if the "unviable tissue" as you call it, is not terminated, it will grow. Growth that will continue until death.
"He not busy being born, is busy dying "
Bob Dylan--It's Allright Ma (I'm only Bleeding).
Yes, books have been written, and tales have been spun.
Cancer is growth also. Again, is a clump of tissue a real person? A half-formed, unviable fetus that can't exist outside the womb is like a cancer to a woman who doesn't want it growing to viability in her body. That is a choice between her conscience, her doctor, and her god. It doesn't involve what you happen to believe.
Physically, we begin dying the moment we are born. Metaphysically, each moment of consciousness is both death and rebirth, a constant and timeless moment of everlasting growth and renewal. Guilt is emotional conflict forever contained within the past, a reactive memory attached to an artificial thought construct, an illusion of reality that is psychologically dead.
You are free to believe -- or not to believe -- whatever you want; you are not free to impose your delusions on others at such a personal level.
Do you feel any guilt subscribing to rightwing ideology that murders real, viable people by creating a greedy system that denies adequate healthcare to the poor? Do you feel any guilt belonging to a religion and to a country that condones murdering real, viable, and innocent people with indiscriminate bombing campaigns and mindless warfare? Or, is your so-called morality only a relative thing that conveniently fits into a narrow, conditioned belief system?
You were correct in your post of a few days ago....Democrats over think everything. Relax, enjoy life, and quit trying to impose your will on everyone.
...And, you should look in the mirror, take your own advice, and quit trying to guilt women who choose abortion.
Kilosqrd: What don't you understand???? Of course we have religious freedom....what we are not supposed to have is government/taxpayer funded support respecting the establishment of only one religion. By his actions Gorsuch would the open the gate for thousands of religions/cults demanding special treatment....will he honor their requests too ???? LOL
KEND: Didn't you read Thom's blog? Gorsuch singled out and ruled in favor of a particular religion. He gave those who claim to belong to that set of beliefs the right to discriminate against those who do not. Geeez..c'mon Kend.
If I were to witness the horror of a late term abortion, I have no doubt I'd be moved. At the other end of the spectrum, a woman swallowing a morning after pill would not move me in the same way. Tricky subject. No clear answer for me.
10K. There is a big difference between a company that provides healthcare benefits that doesn't want to include paying for abortions to saying there should be no abortions. Are you suggesting that the government should determine what benefits a company has to provide to do business.
Truth and facts are often simple. Only when twisted to justify an agenda, such as when does life occur, does it become complicated. Any guilt that the reader incurrs, by reading what I wrote belongs to the reader, not me.
When does a fetus become a person whom you would consider murdered upon being aborted? Simple question.
Murdered is a legal definition, I'm not a lawyer, an not qualified to speak to your question. However, every aborted fetus would have become a person had not their LIFE been terminated.
Federal law says abortion is not murder before "fetal viability."
I understand your point about growth, but do you believe, in your heart, that it is murder of a person before fetal viability?
As I said before, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know when killing someone becomes murder. In war, soldiers kill the enemy, but the killing is not considered murder.
Abortion kills a life. Whether or not that killing is considered murder is for legal minds to determine. No matter if it is murder or not, the aborted life is ended.
Not murder in the strict legal sense. Do you consider it morally wrong, because you think the unviable fetus is a person and has a right to live?
For instance, I consider a soldier killing an enemy (if it's not in self defense) as murder, because I think the war itself is immoral. The so-called enemy is a person, and has a basic right to live.
Yes, I consider abortion morally wrong. Just because a fetus cannot live on it's own doesn't give anyone the right to kill it. New born babies cannot live on their own, does that mean we have the right to kill them? There are those who are much older, who cannot live on their own. Do we have the right to kill them?
I find it amazing that you consider killing an enemy by a soldier murder, as long as it wasn't done in self defense. How do the defenseless defend themselves? Hitler, Stalin, Huesin etc. Etc killed millions of defenseless people. Is it not the responsibility of the strongest to defend the weakest, who aren't capable of defending themselves.
Abortion in my opinion is the ending of a defenseless life, and it is wrong.
Well, first, you are badly misrepresenting what I clearly meant. WWII was an immoral war of aggression on the part of the Axis powers, so their soldiers committed murder. Allied soldiers were defending, so they did not.
Next, you are expanding the definition of "unviable" by making a nonsensical "slippery slope" argument outside the scope of the abortion issue.
You obviously believe that when the sperm enters the egg at conception, it becomes a person and should not be murdered.
So, there it is. Good for you. It is your personal right to believe whatever you want, whether or not it is at odds with the majority of people, especially women, and of the law.
Now, wouldn't it have been a much simpler conversation had you just admitted that at the beginning instead of dancing around the central point?
Ou812: "Truth and facts are often simple. Only when twisted to justify an agenda, such as when does life occur, does it become complicated."
You are the one who attempted to twist the truth. You asked me if I considered a fetus "murdered" upon being aborted? I gave you my answer. Had you been honest, instead of trying to twist the truth, you would have asked do I consider a fetus killed upon being aborted? To which I would have answered yes.
I agree, it would have been much simpler, had you not tried to twist the truth, by introducing murder, a legal topic that neither you nor I are qualified to address. Let me give you another example of the difference between killing and murder. It can be said, I think fairly safely, that everyone who has been murdered has been killed. You can't say everyone who has been killed has been murdered.
I stand by my statement "truth and facts are often simple.....does it become complicated ". Washed up lefties like yourself are always trying to twist truth and facts to meet your agenda.
Haha, again, you are obfuscating and splitting hairs with an abstract, intellectual argument about the nuanced, dictionary definitions of words.
Arguing the difference between murder and killing is tangential to the matter at hand. Obviously, the word "murder" as opposed to the word "killing," in this discussion about the rightness or wrongness of aborting an unviable fetus, is germane to the issue and was used specifically in the context of one's personal concepts or feelings to do with subjective morality, not in the context of interpreting the law in the strict language of legalese, which is off topic.
"Murdering" a person is not on the same level as "Killing" a clump of tissue.
Not that it's really any of my business, other than fleshing out a train of thought on a public forum where you are a willing paticipant. I was only trying to understand where you are coming from -- if you believe that a "person," or however you may define a sentient being with a soul (in the generic sense), is created at the moment of conception and therefore would be "murdered," not merely "killed," if aborted at ANY stage of pregnancy. If you go back through our last exchanges, it seems to be a quite simple inquiry.
As I've stated many times, you are certainly free to believe whatever you want. I respect that, though I may disagree. I'm not trying to trap you or to be accusatory.
There's a world of difference between "twisting the truth" (which, by the way, you have repeated incessantly ... mmm ... In poker, that would probably be considered a "tell") and trying to get at the truth beyond the mere words.
To me there is a huge difference between murdering someone and killing someone. To my knowledge, no one is prosecuted for murder, for performing an abortion. The decision not to prosecute is a legal one. A fetus may not be able to walk and talk, but if not aborted, in a few years it will be walking and talking, kill it then you will probably be prosecuted for murder. Will anyone be prosecuted for murder for killing a fetus, I doubt it.
I'm never going to change your mind, it's a political issue for you and the washed up lefties. But, I believe that deep in your heart, you know killing a fetus is wrong.
Kindly stop fighting
"All that lives is born to die. And so I say to you that nothing really matters."
(Jimmy Page / Robert Plant)
Why are Americans obsessed by semantic legalese type dances?
Fanatics on the religious right are constantly hurling the phrase "murdering babies" when referring to a woman's right to abortion. If they had their way and got rid of Roe v. Wade, they would gladly impose their extremist views on others in the worst possible way by prosecuting women and their doctors for murder with all the power of the state.
Do women only have 'rights' or do they have responsibilities also?
I hear an endless reverberation from the corporate media about
women's rights, identity politics, and people of different shades all saying the same thing around the corporate table. Is that outcome really diversity? What about responsibility and merit? Does responsibility and merit mean anything in our society anymore? What about being decent and acting decently...and is that in contradiction when you are thinking 100% of the time about your 'rights?' Do women not share an increasing responsibility for much that is dysfunctional in our socieity started with child rearing?
At least we didn't end up with HRC who was on the Saudi payroll for 15-25 million dollars, awarded the Saudis 300 billion in arms sales with which they are killing innocent civilians in Yemen, and prostituted the State Department while she was Secretary of State in her 'pay for play' scheme.
No matter how bad Gorsuch might turn out to be, and I think he is a decent and honorable man, it would in no way compare to having our country controlled by Saudi Arabia through their chief lobbyist the Podesta firm and the same John Podesta who was Hillary's campaign chairman.
Better together? The Saudis money and influence and our democracy?
The Saudis spend over a million dollars each and every month buying our politicians, and far too many are taking the Saudi money directly or indirectly...and yes, this IS interfering in our elections and democracy.
Gorsuch is so slick, it looks as sif he's studied for these hearings for years. We cannot allow him a seat on SCOTUS or we are doomed for decades... or the rest of my life anyway. How come the GOP can pass this crap with the nuclear option and Harry Reid never pulled it? Why? Why do we always lose?