Trump Nominates Neil M. Gorsuch to Fill Justice Antonin Scalia Seat on High Court

Details

Category: World News

Published on Wednesday, 01 February 2017 07:53

Written by Janet Walker

The Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch, Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, has been chosen by President Trump to fill the Supreme court seat vacated by the untimely death of the late Justice Antonin Scalia who died while on vacation.

Gorsuch, has the pedigree of most justices, graduate of Columbia, Harvard, and Oxford, and was a member of former President Obama graduating class at Harvard. He is no stranger to the Supreme Court having clerked for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy from 1993 to 1994. He also clerked in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the early 1990’s.

Former President George Bush nominated Gorsuch for the tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and were confirmed on July 20, 2006. The tenth Circuit includes Colorado, Kansa, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.

Born in 1967, at 49, Gorsuch would be the youngest member of the Supreme Court. While some would consider his opinions based on his 1970’s childhood, the nominee is a traditionalist when it comes to the interpretation of the United States Constitution, which translates to strict interpretation or an “originalists” point of view.

As the confirmation and vetting process has just begun Gorsuch can conclude that many of his statements, either met with dissent or concurring opinions from his fellow justices, will be dissected to determine if his opinions fit into the make-up of the current court and honestly, politically, will a fact-finding inquiry be sufficient instead of an all-out nuclear strike.

One particular statement that is receiving scrutiny comes from his previous statement written in The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia centering on a personal belief that all people are “intrinsically valuable.”

“All human beings are intrinsically valuable,” he writes in the book, “and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

As a jurist, in a nation that sees more violent crime and gun violence, which his home state of Colorado has experienced mass violence at Columbine, Aurora, and Claire Davis, the Arapahoe teen shot and killed at point blank range by a school shooter, or nationally those responsible for Pulse Nightclub, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and the list continues and grows, his personal and quite possibly professional opinion that the most heinous sociopath may have value is concerning.

This belief also lends itself to the Abortion debate, and sure challenge under this administration, with an opinion that all life is valuable, life beginning at the beat of a heart and ending with one also, the heartbeat of a fetus, which is not the debate, life then begins at this point. Even this is a hot button issue as medical debate on constitutional beliefs, of which Gorsuch is an “originalist” a believer in the founder’s words are clear and no modernization is necessary. The strict interpretation.

Which brings in the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness argument which may lend itself to the abortion debate. A key phrase in the Declaration of Independence, one of the two founding documents, that announced independence from Great Britain by the idealists who formed this nation. Are the inclusions in the Declaration of Independence equal in strength to the Constitution, the Nation’s rule of law?

Will a child born with severe challenges, mental and physical challenges detected in the womb have the chance to live out the founder’s declarations that all citizens are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Is happiness judged as relative or subjective? Is it an indicator determined by the conditions of life surrounding the individual? Can there be a pursuit with severe limitation to body and mind?

The decision for Abortion will always be contentious and a matter for the courts as it invokes deep opinions and volatile responses from everyone from protesters to zealots.

The facts remain that biblically, which is where most on the pro-life base their decisions are clear in Joshua 24:15, “Choose today whom you’ll serve,” and even more, without a sermon, every miracle in the new testament is based on a choice as Christ explains in John 5:8, to those who have lived in the challenges of mind and body, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.”

A life of impossibility who forbid the hope of that possibility and almost preclude the hopeful from taking the chance, and to receive the miracle one must first choose, all miracles have the same foundational belief, in Matthew, 12:13, “The he said to the man, Stretch out your hand.” How much more impossible than this? A genuine impossibility and yet to receive the man must “choose.”

Old testament and New Testament both agree on choice as the life changer. Choosing is God’s greatest gift to mankind and it remains, throughout the ages, as such. Being strong enough in one’s personal religious beliefs to allow others to make their own choices as they determine fit for their individual life is the greatest gift humankind can extend to each other. With each court and each generation having the strength to allow others their own choices as we have ours.

So while abortion may again see itself in front of the new court the result may in fact be the same as Gorsuch may interlace all “life” debates with his belief of the value of life.

Gorsuch may in fact be the most moderate Supreme Court nominee coming from the current administration and any challenge should be reserved for the next pick which has the real potential to change the face of the nation.

At this point should no other disruptions, retirements, or deaths, occur the decisions on hot button issues such as Abortion, Assisted Suicide and ObamaCare the myriad of challenges brought before the High Court will generally see opinions and decisions similar to those when the late Justice Antonin Scalia presided.