Gorsuch writes in his book: No constitutional basis for putting a mothers life in front of her child

[jc456]

I have already emailed BOTH my Senators, one Democrat the other Republican, next week I will call them, you do the same, and maybe we can stop this disaster.

what disaster?

 

[g5000]

It's clearly noted that Gorsuch didn't say that there is no constitutional basis for putting a FATHERS life ahead of their child. Did you see that anywhere in that comment, I didn't.

Well, I did say you had the right to sound like an idiot. I didn't think you would actually take advantage of it.

 

[g5000]

You want to use a Nuclear option, we'll use a Nuclear option in the voting booth in 2018 and again in 2020.

As I have been trying to tell the pseudocons for a very long time; right and wrong, truth and lies, are not determined by popularity.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.

It wouldn't matter in a constitutional context, in other words if you were ruling in accordance with the law or arguing the constitutionality of putting the mothers life ahead of the childs there would be no "constitutional basis" for doing so.

 

[kaz]

I have already emailed BOTH my Senators, one Democrat the other Republican, next week I will call them, you do the same, and maybe we can stop this disaster.

what disaster?

He wants a snowflake SCOTUS

 

[yiostheoy]

Well I was wrong about Neil Gorsuch, he indeed needs to be fought all the way from here to HELL.

He wrote in his Assisted suicide book:

Gorsuch Notes In His Book on Assisted Suicide That There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.

The war on Women continues--write, call, email your Senators NOW, and raise HOLY HELL.

They apparently weren't paying attention to this on January 21, 2017

For pictures on all 50 state participation into this march go here.
Woman's march pictures

Gorsuch as a 10th district court judge ruled against an injunction against the Utah governor over denying Federal funding to a planned parenthood office there. Gorsuch was then slapped down by the 10th District court panel who reprimanded that the 10th district court put back the injunction on the Utah Governor, stating he was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood

Yeah you in the Reich wing have picked a real winner here.

I was going to give you an "informative" rating but after reading the rest of your post "funny" is going to need to do.

The U.S. Constitution does not mention women anywhere.

It also does not mention abortion.

And it also does not mention euthanasia.

Negro slaves are rated as 3/5th of a non-negro for census purposes.

But women are not mentioned at all.

Either the Founding Freemasons did not think about women, abortion, or euthanasia or else they intended to leave those issues to the various States.

Roe is very bad law. But it would take a Constitutional amendment to restore States' Rights on this issue after Roe.

It's clearly noted that Gorsuch didn't say that there is no constitutional basis for putting a FATHERS life ahead of their child. Did you see that anywhere in that comment, I didn't.

This guy is just another fucking nutcase, that Trump has strewn around his administration, certain to be a special pick of Mike Pence, who signed his own abortion law in Indiana that was immediately overturned by a higher court.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer

You want to use a Nuclear option, we'll use a Nuclear option in the voting booth in 2018 and again in 2020.

I suspect that ultimately the "nuclear option" of eliminating the requirement of a supermajority for cloture (to end a filibuster) is going to be inevitable for the U.S. Senate.

This supermajority requirement has been unconstitutional since the early 1800's. It is time for it to go.

What happens in 2018 and 2020 will depend on whether Pres DJ Trump can stimulate job growth and the economy by then.

If he does then like Reagan he can say "do you feel better off now than 4 years ago?"

And whether ACA reform improves or makes worse the healthcare issue in America will likely determine the outcome of the House and Senate races then.

But those are both a long way off. In the meantime Donald will get to play President and Mitch and Paul will get to play Senate and House leaders. And whether they perform like The Three Musketeers or more like The Three Stooges has yet to be seen.

In the meantime Kaine, Schumer, and Pelosi will have 2 to 4 years to make their case. Only time will tell.

All the marching in the world and up and down DC streets is not going to change anything.

 

[jc456]

There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Care to elaborate on how that is wrong?

Perhaps if MEN were the ones who got pregnant, you would understand.

so are you saying that some women don't realize they may get pregnant while having coitus?

 

[OKTexas]

Clearly this pick was made by Vice President Mike Pence who as governor of Indiana decided to sign his own abortion law into effect, that was overturned by a higher court one year later.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer

These fucking idiots have no business being in politics much less picking Supreme Court nominees.

I would say that a sitting president has the right to pick his justice if the justice is qualified.

but they didn't do that, did they?

and now they think they should get this religious nutter?

Yeah, it's just unfair of a judge that wants to use the the actual text of the law and Constitution applied to a decision instead of personal opinions, how dare he.

the constitution is not some fundie's bible.... we live in a common law nation. our caselaw defines our statutes.

you could try reading Marbury v Madison, which addressed the issue of constitutional construction during the founders' day.

but why would you do anything that might prove you don't know what you're talking about

What am I suppose to be impressed where the court granted itself powers not granted them by the Constitution?

it's settled law for over 200 years.

should that impress you? yes, unless you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

the point, is that our laws are INTENDED to be interpreted by courts. or they have no purpose.

and the founders clearly intended them to have purpose.

So was Dread Scott, everything is subject to change by a subsequent court. And no, laws were intended to be applied by the courts, if the law doesn't meet the standards of the Constitution they have an obligation to set aside the law and allow the legislative body that wrote it to fix it. The courts has no constitutional authority to tweak laws in any way shape or form, it is essentially enacting a law if a form not passed by the legislative body. That has become a common occurrence lately and it's NOT constitutional.

 

[jc456]

I have already emailed BOTH my Senators, one Democrat the other Republican, next week I will call them, you do the same, and maybe we can stop this disaster.

what disaster?

He wants a snowflake SCOTUS

but he didn't win. doesn't he get that? that was the reason for the election?

 

[OKTexas]

What they failed to recognize is without conception, life doesn't exist. So it follows that life begins at conception.

That's a really bad and false analysis.

See "red herring".

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

You should look up "full of shit", you'll see your photo.

 

[yiostheoy]

I think it is fairly safe to assume Gorsuch believes life begins at conception. But it can only be an assumption since I have not seen evidence of him saying that directly. However, I have been reading as much as I can about him these past few days and it is a reasonable inference based on what I have found.

If Gorsuch does believe life begins at conception, then he believes that newly conceived life is a person. Therefore, he believes the life in the womb is endowed with all the same rights as the mother.

I think all this panic over that is a smokescreen. No rational person would believe we're going to be slaughtering mothers left and right if Roe v. Wade is overturned. As I said above, that scenario in this day and age is negligible. Deaths during childbirth are almost at parity with deaths during abortions. Both are extremely low.

It's just another bogus red flag to keep the abortion mills going full steam. They aren't really worried about mothers dying on the birthing table. They are worried the abortion mills will be shut down, period.

We can't let them divert attention away from the mass murder mills.

When you ass-u-me you make an azz out of you and me.

Does anybody know if Gorsuch is Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or Morman? He is from Colorado so he could be anything.

And this will be indicative of what he "believes" if that's what you want to know.

 

[yiostheoy]

What they failed to recognize is without conception, life doesn't exist. So it follows that life begins at conception.

That's a really bad and false analysis.

See "red herring".

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

You should look up "full of shit", you'll see your photo.

That does not change anything.

While you are reading about "red herring" you should also look at "ad hominem".

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[kaz]

I have already emailed BOTH my Senators, one Democrat the other Republican, next week I will call them, you do the same, and maybe we can stop this disaster.

what disaster?

He wants a snowflake SCOTUS

but he didn't win. doesn't he get that? that was the reason for the election?

Democrats can't process that they ever lose, it's not in the programming

 

[Frankeneinstein]

To be fair, there is also no constitutional basis to put the child's life ahead of the mother either.

That only factors into the legal argument if the child is attempting/going to end the mothers life.

 

[koshergrl]

There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Care to elaborate on how that is wrong?

There are reasons for abortions. Cancer and the sudden onset of type 1 diabetes that was brought on by a pregnancy.

Lie. So no need to read further. Abortions do not cure cancer or type 1 diabetes. Thanks for playing, baby killer.

 

[Papageorgio]

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

Putting aside all the drama, there are many mothers that would chose their death over their child's death.

 

[g5000]

I think it is fairly safe to assume Gorsuch believes life begins at conception. But it can only be an assumption since I have not seen evidence of him saying that directly. However, I have been reading as much as I can about him these past few days and it is a reasonable inference based on what I have found.

If Gorsuch does believe life begins at conception, then he believes that newly conceived life is a person. Therefore, he believes the life in the womb is endowed with all the same rights as the mother.

I think all this panic over that is a smokescreen. No rational person would believe we're going to be slaughtering mothers left and right if Roe v. Wade is overturned. As I said above, that scenario in this day and age is negligible. Deaths during childbirth are almost at parity with deaths during abortions. Both are extremely low.

It's just another bogus red flag to keep the abortion mills going full steam. They aren't really worried about mothers dying on the birthing table. They are worried the abortion mills will be shut down, period.

We can't let them divert attention away from the mass murder mills.

When you ass-u-me you make an azz out of you and me.

Does anybody know if Gorsuch is Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or Morman? He is from Colorado so he could be anything.

And this will be indicative of what he "believes" if that's what you want to know.

Like I said, I have been reading a lot about him these past few days. His Hobby Lobby decision. His dissent on PPAU v Herbert. And more.

My assumption is based on much more solid ground than Felix Unger's hapless witness.

 

[kaz]

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

Putting aside all the drama, there are many mothers that would chose their death over their child's death.

In all these cases, the legal question is who decides? I think the mother decides. Your argument is consistent with that

 

[OKTexas]

What they failed to recognize is without conception, life doesn't exist. So it follows that life begins at conception.

That's a really bad and false analysis.

See "red herring".

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

You should look up "full of shit", you'll see your photo.

That does not change anything.

While you are reading about "red herring" you should also look at "ad hominem".

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

Damn you're a real hoot, how about you demonstrate scientifically how a child is born without conception. You might want to start by looking up the definition of conception.

 

[g5000]

There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Care to elaborate on how that is wrong?

There are reasons for abortions. Cancer and the sudden onset of type 1 diabetes that was brought on by a pregnancy.

You are getting desperate and looking more the fool.

The maternal mortality rate in the United States is 12.7 per 100,000 live births. That is NOT why women are getting abortions, retard.