Difference between revisions of "Neil Gorsuch"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Supreme Court nomination and confirmation: Spelling, grammar, and general cleanup, typos fixed: sworn-in → sworn in)
(Gorsuch the authored the decision that unleashed lawfare for the transgender movement, in ''Bostock v. Clayton County'' (June 15, 2020). This set the precedent -- without any textual basis in law -- for homosexuals and transgenders to)
Line 24: Line 24:
 
'''Neil McGill Gorsuch''' (born August 29, 1967, age {{age|1967|8|29}}) is an [[Associate Justice]] on the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]]. Previously he served as a federal appellate judge. He was nominated by [[United States]] President [[Donald Trump]] to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the passing of [[Antonin Scalia]].  In his first full Term on the Court, according to ''Reason Magazine'', Gorsuch had a more [[liberal]] voting record than even the socially liberal Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]].<ref name="Reason">https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/27/neil-gorsuch-was-more-liberal-than-antho</ref>  Gorsuch repeatedly rules in favor of the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[illegal aliens]], giving [[liberal]]s an unearned majority on those issues.  Gorsuch, who was fed to [[Trump]] by [[D.C.]] [[Deep State]] types, wrote the concurrence in the 2023 [[affirmative action]] case that is being used by [[liberal]] [[colleges]] to terminate their pro-[[American]] legacy admission preferences.<ref>[https://www.aol.com/news/top-schools-begin-dropping-legacy-193220974.html Top Schools dropping legacy admissions.]</ref>
 
'''Neil McGill Gorsuch''' (born August 29, 1967, age {{age|1967|8|29}}) is an [[Associate Justice]] on the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]]. Previously he served as a federal appellate judge. He was nominated by [[United States]] President [[Donald Trump]] to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the passing of [[Antonin Scalia]].  In his first full Term on the Court, according to ''Reason Magazine'', Gorsuch had a more [[liberal]] voting record than even the socially liberal Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]].<ref name="Reason">https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/27/neil-gorsuch-was-more-liberal-than-antho</ref>  Gorsuch repeatedly rules in favor of the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[illegal aliens]], giving [[liberal]]s an unearned majority on those issues.  Gorsuch, who was fed to [[Trump]] by [[D.C.]] [[Deep State]] types, wrote the concurrence in the 2023 [[affirmative action]] case that is being used by [[liberal]] [[colleges]] to terminate their pro-[[American]] legacy admission preferences.<ref>[https://www.aol.com/news/top-schools-begin-dropping-legacy-193220974.html Top Schools dropping legacy admissions.]</ref>
  
 +
Gorsuch the authored the decision that unleashed [[lawfare]] for the [[transgender movement]], in ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]'' (June 15, 2020).  This set the precedent -- without any textual basis in law -- for [[homosexual]]s and [[transgender]]s to sue for alleged discrimination against employers, private schools, and virtually any institution.
 +
 +
At least some teachers and applicants for teaching positions may be blocked from recovering on such claims by the “ministerial exception” recognized in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171, 132 S. Ct. 694, 181 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2012). Two cases now pending before the Court present the question whether teachers who provide religious instruction can be considered to be “ministers.” 54 But even if teachers with those responsibilities qualify, what about other very visible school employees who may not qualify for the ministerial exception? Provisions of Title VII provide exemptions for certain religious organizations and schools “with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on” of the “activities” of the organization or school, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-1(a); see also §2000e-2(e)(2), but the scope of these provisions is disputed, and as interpreted by some lower courts, they provide only narrow protection.
 +
Bostock v. Clayton Cty., 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1781 (2020) (Alito, J., dissenting).
 +
joined the liberal wing of the [[Supreme Court]] in voting (along with [[John Roberts]]) to write [[transgenderism]] and "sexual identity" into the twelfth title of the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]<ref>Two references:
 +
*[https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/15/bostock-v-clayton-county-scotus-rules-6-3-that-gay-trans-employees-protected-by-civil-rights-act/# Bostock v. Clayton County: SCOTUS Rules 6-3 that Gay, Trans Employees Protected by Civil Rights Act]
 +
*[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law BREAKING: US Supreme Court votes 6-3 to redefine ‘sex,’ write transgenderism into 1964 law]</ref> in ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]''.
 
Gorsuch was "[[pro-choice]]" and told Senator [[Susan Collins]] that he would not overturn ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' simply because there was a 5-4 majority to do so, as reported by ''Politico'':<ref>https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/neil-gorsuch-charm-offensive-selling-democrats-235159</ref>
 
Gorsuch was "[[pro-choice]]" and told Senator [[Susan Collins]] that he would not overturn ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' simply because there was a 5-4 majority to do so, as reported by ''Politico'':<ref>https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/neil-gorsuch-charm-offensive-selling-democrats-235159</ref>
  
Line 79: Line 86:
  
 
On the [[Fourth Amendment]], Gorsuch alone espouses a view that it should be reinterpreted based on property ownership, rather than privacy expectations.  Litigants in Fourth Amendment cases, including the one decided by the Supreme Court in June 2018, do not typically assert such an argument.
 
On the [[Fourth Amendment]], Gorsuch alone espouses a view that it should be reinterpreted based on property ownership, rather than privacy expectations.  Litigants in Fourth Amendment cases, including the one decided by the Supreme Court in June 2018, do not typically assert such an argument.
−
 
−
On June 15, 2020, Gorsuch joined the liberal wing of the [[Supreme Court]] in voting (along with [[John Roberts]]) to write [[transgenderism]] and "sexual identity" into the twelfth title of the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]<ref>Two references:
 
−
*[https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/15/bostock-v-clayton-county-scotus-rules-6-3-that-gay-trans-employees-protected-by-civil-rights-act/# Bostock v. Clayton County: SCOTUS Rules 6-3 that Gay, Trans Employees Protected by Civil Rights Act]
 
−
*[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law BREAKING: US Supreme Court votes 6-3 to redefine ‘sex,’ write transgenderism into 1964 law]</ref> in ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]''.
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 04:23, May 10, 2024

Neil Gorsuch
Neil Gorsuch SCOTUS.jpg
Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
From: April 10, 2017 – present
Nominator Donald Trump
Predecessor Antonin Scalia
Successor Incumbent (no successor)
Former Judge of the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
From: August 8, 2006 – April 9, 2017
Predecessor David M. Ebel
Successor Allison H. Eld
Information
Spouse(s) Louise Burleston
Religion Episcopalian

Neil McGill Gorsuch (born August 29, 1967, age 56) is an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Previously he served as a federal appellate judge. He was nominated by United States President Donald Trump to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Antonin Scalia. In his first full Term on the Court, according to Reason Magazine, Gorsuch had a more liberal voting record than even the socially liberal Justice Anthony Kennedy.[1] Gorsuch repeatedly rules in favor of the homosexual agenda and illegal aliens, giving liberals an unearned majority on those issues. Gorsuch, who was fed to Trump by D.C. Deep State types, wrote the concurrence in the 2023 affirmative action case that is being used by liberal colleges to terminate their pro-American legacy admission preferences.[2]

Gorsuch the authored the decision that unleashed lawfare for the transgender movement, in Bostock v. Clayton County (June 15, 2020). This set the precedent -- without any textual basis in law -- for homosexuals and transgenders to sue for alleged discrimination against employers, private schools, and virtually any institution.

At least some teachers and applicants for teaching positions may be blocked from recovering on such claims by the “ministerial exception” recognized in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171, 132 S. Ct. 694, 181 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2012). Two cases now pending before the Court present the question whether teachers who provide religious instruction can be considered to be “ministers.” 54 But even if teachers with those responsibilities qualify, what about other very visible school employees who may not qualify for the ministerial exception? Provisions of Title VII provide exemptions for certain religious organizations and schools “with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on” of the “activities” of the organization or school, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-1(a); see also §2000e-2(e)(2), but the scope of these provisions is disputed, and as interpreted by some lower courts, they provide only narrow protection. Bostock v. Clayton Cty., 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1781 (2020) (Alito, J., dissenting). joined the liberal wing of the Supreme Court in voting (along with John Roberts) to write transgenderism and "sexual identity" into the twelfth title of the 1964 Civil Rights Act[3] in Bostock v. Clayton County. Gorsuch was "pro-choice" and told Senator Susan Collins that he would not overturn Roe v. Wade simply because there was a 5-4 majority to do so, as reported by Politico:[4]

When [Gorsuch] met with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) earlier [in February], she pressed him on his views on judicial precedent: If five current justices disagree with a previous Supreme Court decision, is that sufficient grounds to overturn the ruling? Gorsuch said no.
“It’s important to me generally, but it also is important to me because of Roe v. Wade,” Collins, who supports abortion rights, said of asking Gorsuch about precedent. “It’s an important principle.”

David Souter and Anthony Kennedy used the same excuse to perpetuate Roe v. Wade in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Much to the surprise (but delight) of conservatives, however, Gorsuch cast his vote without comment in favor of completely overturning Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. But less than a year later, Gorsuch cast his vote in favor of allowing the chemical abortion drug mifepristone to remain on the market, which is responsible for a majority of American abortions, in FDA v. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine, Sup. Ct. No. 22A902.

Leading up to his nomination and confirmation, Gorsuch was active in an ultra-liberal Episcopalian church whose woman pastor marched against Trump in Washington, D.C. in January. More generally, the Episcopal Church is officially on record as being strongly against pro-life laws, though TEC's official statement says that abortion "should be used only in extreme situations.”

After Scalia unexpected passed away, Gorsuch began positioning himself for the vacancy by aligning himself with originalism. He supposedly opposes judicial activism as an underhanded method to bring about social change,[5] but has sided with inventing new rights for homosexuals and transgenders under federal laws passed decades ago.

Life

Neil Gorsuch was born in Colorado on August 29, 1967, to two lawyers.[6] He spent increasing time in Washington, D.C. as his mother Anne became the first woman to run the EPA.[7] He went to Columbia University, where he wrote for the Columbia Daily Spectator and co-founded The Federalist Paper, and later attended Harvard Law School.[8]

The "Frozen Trucker" Case

See also: Frozen Trucker case

Judge Gorsuch rendered several opinions after the vacancy arose on the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps as a way of enhancing his own candidacy. Often for the first time, Gorsuch used language in these opinions to position himself closer to Justice Scalia's philosophy. One of these opinions, a dissent by Gorsuch, occurred in the so-called "frozen trucker" case, TransAm Trucking, Inc. v. Admin. Review Bd., United States DOL, 833 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2016).[9]

This so-called "frozen trucker" case emerged during Gorsuch's confirmation hearings as an example of his favoring powerful corporations over the "little guy." A trucker whose rig had broken down was stuck in freezing weather and told to remain with his rig until help arrived. After waiting in vain for more than two and a half hours, he unhooked his trailer and drove it to safety, and was fired for disobeying orders.

Gorsuch dissented passionately from a panel decision that upheld an administrative ruling reinstating the employment of the trucker.[10]

Supreme Court nomination and confirmation

President Trump announcing his nomination of Gorsuch, January 31, 2017.
President Trump looks on as Gorsuch is sworn in.

On January 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.[11][12] The nomination was well received by many conservatives.[13][14] Others, however, most notably Andrew Schlafly, disagreed with the nomination due to concerns about Gorsuch's position on abortion.[15][16] The Senate ultimately confirmed Gorsuch on a vote of 54–45, even though the GOP was forced to initiate the nuclear option and remove the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees due to Democrat obstructionism.[17]

Tenure on the Court

After assuming office, Gorsuch was frequently described as generally positioning himself along with conservative justices,[18] though Reason Magazine's analysis found that in his first full term, he positioned himself as slightly more liberal than even Justice Kennedy, the swing vote.[1] On June 26, 2017, Gorsuch joined a dissenting opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas opposing the Supreme Court's decision to reject hearing two cases in which gun rights groups appealed and which meant that anti-gun and -Second Amendment laws would prevail.[19][20] The Court assigned Gorsuch to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.[21]

On subsequent Second Amendment petitions for cert, however, Gorsuch sided with the liberal wing of the Court in denying cert and thereby allowing anti-Second Amendment appellate rulings to stand. For example, on Feb. 20, 2018, Gorsuch refused to join a dissent by Justice Thomas which sought to invalidate a 10-day waiting period gun control law in California:[22]

“ The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to respect that right, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 749-750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (plurality opinion); id., at 805, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Because the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution, courts cannot subject laws that burden it to mere rational-basis review. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 628, n. 27, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008).

But the decision below did just that. Purporting to apply intermediate scrutiny, the Court of Appeals upheld California’s 10-day waiting period for firearms based solely on its own “common sense.” Silvester v. Harris, 843 F. 3d 816, 828 (CA9 2016). It did so without requiring California to submit relevant evidence, without addressing petitioners’ arguments to the contrary, and without acknowledging the District Court’s factual findings. This deferential analysis was indistinguishable from rational-basis review. And it is symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.

”

On April 17, 2018, Gorusch joined the liberal wing of the Supreme Court by casting the deciding vote against deportation of an illegal alien who broke the law, and thereby invalidated a key part of immigration law.

On the Fourth Amendment, Gorsuch alone espouses a view that it should be reinterpreted based on property ownership, rather than privacy expectations. Litigants in Fourth Amendment cases, including the one decided by the Supreme Court in June 2018, do not typically assert such an argument.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/27/neil-gorsuch-was-more-liberal-than-antho
  2. ↑ Top Schools dropping legacy admissions.
  3. ↑ Two references:
  4. ↑ https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/neil-gorsuch-charm-offensive-selling-democrats-235159
  5. ↑ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/31/who-is-judge-neil-gorsuch.html
  6. ↑ http://www.biography.com/people/neil-gorsuch-020617
  7. ↑ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/01/neil-gorsuchs-mother-once-ran-the-epa-it-was-a-disaster/?utm_term=.498012b39bc1
  8. ↑ http://spectatorarchive.library.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/columbia?a=d&d=cs19860319-01.2.19&e=-------en-20--54972--txt-txIN-columbia-----
  9. ↑ United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit: Appeal from the Department of Labor (ARB No. 13-031) (pdf)
  10. ↑ Criticism of Judge Gorsuch's dissent
  11. ↑ Klukowski, Ken (January 31, 2017). Trump Nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch to Supreme Court. Breitbart. Retrieved January 31, 2017.
  12. ↑ Hurley, Lawrence; Holland, Steve (January 31, 2017). Trump picks conservative judge Gorsuch for U.S. Supreme Court. Reuters. Retrieved January 31, 2017.
  13. ↑ Chamberlain, Steve (January 31, 2017). Conservatives hail Trump's Supreme Court pick. Fox News. Retrieved January 31, 2017.
  14. ↑ Ertelt, Steven (January 31, 2017). President Donald Trump Nominates Pro-Life-Friendly Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. LifeNews.com. Retrieved January 31, 2017.
  15. ↑ Dannenfelser, Marjorie (January 31, 2017). The Truth about Trump’s Pro-life SCOTUS List. Townhall. Retrieved February 1, 2017.
  16. ↑ http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=1302133&oldid=1301962
  17. ↑ Berger, Judson (April 7, 2017). Gorsuch confirmed to Supreme Court. Fox News. Retrieved April 7, 2017.
  18. ↑ Multiple references: This perception remained one year in: Later sources discussing this: See also:
  19. ↑ Justices Thomas, Gorsuch blast court decision to reject gun rights appeal. Fox News. Retrieved June 26, 2017.
  20. ↑ Klukowski, Ken (June 26, 2017). Justices Thomas and Gorsuch: Supreme Court Should Take More Second Amendment Cases. Breitbart News. Retrieved June 27, 2017.
  21. ↑ Lovelace, Ryan (June 27, 2017). Supreme Court gives Neil Gorsuch a Midwestern circuit in new assignments. Washington Examiner. Retrieved June 27, 2017.
  22. ↑ Silvester v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 945, 945 (2018).

See also

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Neil_Gorsuch&oldid=2046511"