Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Trump Nominates Religious Right, Conservative Darling Neil Gorsuch To The Supreme Court (Updated)

To fulfill his campaign promise to nominate a hyper conservative pro life judge Donald Trump has put forth Neil Gorsuch, a federal appeals judge in Denver, as his pick for the Supreme Court.

In an announcement that was scheduled for Thursday but moved up to tonight to take the attention off his Muslim Ban, Trump announced that Gorsuch will replace the Court seat left vacant by Antonin Scalia, who died last February.

Trump made the announcement during a bizarre televised prime-time broadcast which is considered highly unusual and inappropriate for proceedings as these.

Democrats will most likely be on the offensive and under increasing pressure to block or deny the nomination due to the Republican's year long obstruction of President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.

If confirmed, Gorsuch, 49, would bring to the bench a conservative record lusted after by the Federalist Society, a group that helped Trump put together his Supreme Court wish list.

Here is a small list of Gorsuch's cases that will get make any self respecting religious right, conservative, Obama-hater salivate...

• In a 2013 ruling in the well-known Hobby Lobby case, in which he sided with the privately owned chain, Grouch argued that Hobby Lobby would prevail with the argument that the Affordable Care Act “substantially burdened their religious exercise.” 
• Gorsuch then wrote in a separate opinion that individual business owners had the same right to deny comprehensive health care from their employees. 
• He made a similar decision in Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, where he wrote in a dissent that if your religious beliefs come into conflict with facts and the law, your religion should take precedence. 
• Gorsuch dissented in Summum v. Pleasant Grove City, a major case involving a Ten Commandments monument. In that case, officials in Pleasant Grove, Utah allowed a privately donated Christian monument to be placed on public property. 
• In the case of American Atheists v. Davenport, Gorsuch said Christian crosses could be erected on public property (to honor fallen officers) with the blessing of the Utah Highway Patrol because they didn’t promote Christianity.
• Gorsuch defended gun possession, as described in his dissent on the 2012 United States v. Games-Perezcase. According to the case, defendant Miguel Games-Perez owned a gun after having been convicted of a felony he didn't know he committed. He added that there is "a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals"

Yep, that'll make 'em happy.

No comments:

Post a Comment