Home Health Care Thorner: Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch may not be what pro-lifers hope for

Thorner: Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch may not be what pro-lifers hope for


By Nancy Thorner - 

Democrats keep banging the same drum against President Trump, which harkens on his perceived Russian connections and his labeling as a racist maniac, as unhinged Democrats continue to grab at all the straws they have to wrest control of this nation from Trump and his millions of supporters.  

But what about Republican "leadership" that can ruin Trump by hamstringing everything he wants to do, or by goading Trump into breaking his promises, which are mostly the promises of the Republican platform. 

The “American Thinker” featured a blog by Fran Fawcett Peterson on March 3, 2017, entitled, Trump's Senate soboteurs.  The article blamed the Republican-controlled Senate for only 17 Trump confirmations so far, and how Trump has a number from 500 to 1,242 individuals needing Senate approval for different positions in his administration to replace Obama appointee holdovers.  Given the amount of time the Senate is in session, the figure of 500 appointees would take nearly two years of round-the-clock work! 

Not only are there Senate soboteurs, they also exist in the U.S. House.  Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan is not in tune with the president's agenda, but instead seems to be marching to the beat of lobbyists, big business, Republican elite, and big donor Republicans on the issue of Obamacare.  The health care plan Ryan is pushing has been called "Obamacare Lite" and is being looked upon as a partial repeal that would be met with anger by Trump voters.  So is the way Speaker Paul Ryan views the illegal immigration issue.   

Might it be time for those House and Senate members who can't support Trump's policies, which enabled many of them to be elected on his coattails, to follow this well-known comment of General Patton:  "Lead me, follow me or get out of the way"?

A crucial Trump promise on the campaign trial, which he repeated at every campaign rally, is that he would appoint a Supreme Court Justice in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia.  Scalia's pro-life position helped Trump become president, as millions of Evangelical Christians voted for Trump as single issue voters.  What would happen if Judge Gorsuch were confirmed because Trump advisors, and now Senate members, are being led to believe that Gorsuch's pro-life credential mirror those of Scalia?

Nominee Gorsuch Spills the Beans Politico

Very disturbing is that nominee Neil Gorsuch told Senator Susan Collins that Gorsuch would be the fifth vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, rather than overturn it.  As explained by Politico :

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.  I doubt Senate Republicans will eliminate the filibuster rule just to accommodate Gorsuch, and Democrats have enough votes to filibuster him.  So the Senate may block Gorsuch.

As to why Judge Gorsuch was highly recommended to Trump by his advisors?  It is easier to confirm a nominee who has a pro-life record because he would have a strong base of support. No one would feel deceived by him.  The record is 5 out of 5 in confirming pro-life nominees:  Scalia, Rehnquist (to Chief Justice), Thomas, Roberts and Alito.  Democrats are less likely to filibuster a nominee who has strong support, which Gorsuch lacks.  There are many fine pro-life candidates, such as Sen. Mike Lee and Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who have political support and would be confirmed.

President Trump was misled by the Federalist Society strategy of nominating someone who lacks a pro-life record for the unborn and who believes in adhering to mistaken liberal precedent.  But the unborn may get a second chance, and we should speak out to help Trump honor his pro-life pledge.


  1. “The health care plan Ryan is pushing has been called “Obamacare Lite” and is being looked upon as a partial repeal that would be met with anger by Trump voters.
    Would that be the American Health Care Act, which President Trump says is a “wonderful new Healthcare Bill”?
    As for Gorsuch: his doctoral thesis was an attack on the moral justification for euthanasia and assisted suicide; and he dissented vigorously from the Tenth Circuit’s injunction against Utah’s defunding of Planned Parenthood. The claim about what he might have said to Senator Collins sounds like something Andy Schlafly would gin up. Ed Whelan of National Review Online has demolished Schlafly’s charges.

  2. Gorsuch is not pro-life and his comments to U.S. Senator Collins, as reported in Politico, prove it. Statements by former clerks and others also confirm how liberal Gorsuch is.
    Sorry, Rich, I did not “gin up” what Politico reported. As to Ed Whelan, he does not even support Trump’s pledge to nominate only pro-life judges, and Whelan signed a ridiculous letter telling Catholics not to vote for Trump.
    Rich, do you support Trump’s pro-life pledge for judicial nominees? I don’t expect a straight answer.
    Andy Schlafly, Esq.

Exit mobile version