How Will the Court Survive?

 

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?

MR. STEWART: I —

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I — I — I don’t see how it is possible. It’s what Casey talked about when it talked about watershed decisions. Some of them, Brown versus Board of Education it mentioned, and this one have such an entrenched set of expectations in our society that this is what the Court decided, this is what we will follow, that the — that we won’t be able to survive if people believe that everything, including New York versus Sullivan — I could name any other set of rights, including the Second Amendment, by the way. There are many political people who believe the Court erred in seeing this as a personal right as — as opposed to a militia right. If people actually believe that it’s all political, how will we survive? How will the Court survive?

-Excerpt from Oral Argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, December 1, 2021

I’ve just started reading through the transcript of this morning’s oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, so I cannot comment on the entire discussion. However, these questions posed by Justin Sotomayor struck me as especially callous. Justice Sotomayor emphasized the word “survive” in reference to her own authority, but it just made me think of the survival of unborn babies at issue in this case. Recognizing the political implications of this case, I understand the reason she is asking such questions. I’m thinking that she might have used a less loaded word, but perhaps the repeated reliance on “survive” is a bit of a Freudian slip?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 64 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):

    JoelB (View Comment):

    IIRC in an interview with Justice Thomas that was posted on Ricochet, he said that oral arguments usually have little bearing on the justices’ decisions. If they have seen the written briefs, then their minds are probably already made up. It’s just going to be a matter of who writes the decision now.

    He’s the giant of our times on the Court.  

    • #31
  2. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Manny (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    Roberts will cave. It’s what he does best. There is a strain of conservative that believes the appearance of things is more important than their substance. Or, rather, the appearance of subscribing to the myth of something – such as the ‘independence’ of the Court – is more important than the reality – upholding the constitution. Even when he knows in his heart of hearts that those to the (nominal) left of him don’t give a fig for anything but political results.

    That’s probably. However, he also doesn’t like narrow decisions. He may go with the conservatives to make this a decisive 6-3 vote. But we’ll have to see. He really is a failure as a conservative appointee.

    Better than Gore would have given us.

    But you’re not wrong.

    • #32
  3. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    She said “survive” because she knows full well that if they overturn Roe and Casey then the dems will flip out like we’ve never seen before and they will not let one ballot box go unstuffed or anything to happen in Congress until they have stacked the courts.

    • #33
  4. Lilly B Coolidge
    Lilly B
    @LillyB

    Now that I’ve had the chance to read a little further, there’s more “wisdom” from Sotomayor to share:

    JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So when does the life of a woman and putting her at risk enter the calculus? Meaning, right now, forcing women who are poor — and that’s 75 percent of the population and much higher percentage of those women in Mississippi who elect abortions before viability — they are put at a tremendously greater risk of medical complications and ending their life, 14 times greater to give birth to a child full term, than it is to have an abortion before viability.
    And now the state is saying to these
    women, we can choose not only to physically complicate your existence, put you at medical risk, make you poorer by the choice because we believe what?

    There’s a lot wrong with her reasoning here, but I can’t help but focus on the word “poorer.” I think a woman’s life is only “poorer” from giving birth (and raising the child herself) if you only think in material terms, and maybe not even then. To bring another person into the world when the alternative is to forcibly terminate that person’s life, is not to diminish the life of the mother.

    I’m pretty sure I am financially disadvantaged by my children (and now they’re old enough to want more expensive Christmas presents), but they enrich my life and the lives of family, friends, teachers, coaches, etc. Hopefully, they’ll create families of their own in time. Justice Sotomayor’s line of questioning reminds me that she doesn’t have any children of her own. 

    • #34
  5. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Manny (View Comment):
    He really is a failure as a conservative appointee human being.

    Fixed it for you.

    • #35
  6. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Columbo (View Comment):

    She is a WIDE LATINA.

    Latinx, at least for now. 

    • #36
  7. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Manny (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    Roberts will cave. It’s what he does best. There is a strain of conservative that believes the appearance of things is more important than their substance. Or, rather, the appearance of subscribing to the myth of something – such as the ‘independence’ of the Court – is more important than the reality – upholding the constitution. Even when he knows in his heart of hearts that those to the (nominal) left of him don’t give a fig for anything but political results.

    That’s probably. However, he also doesn’t like narrow decisions. He may go with the conservatives to make this a decisive 6-3 vote. But we’ll have to see. He really is a failure as a conservative appointee.

    Robert’s will try to make the ruling narrow to the extent possible but this does not sound like caving to me.

    I’d like to focus on the 15-week ban because that’s not a dramatic departure from viability. It is the standard that the vast majority of other countries have. When you get to the viability standard, we share that standard with the People’s Republic of China and North Korea. And I don’t think you have to be in favor of looking to international law to set our constitutional standards to be concerned if those are your…share that particular time period.”

    • #37
  8. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    JoelB (View Comment):

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):

    JoelB (View Comment):

    IIRC in an interview with Justice Thomas that was posted on Ricochet, he said that oral arguments usually have little bearing on the justices’ decisions. If they have seen the written briefs, then their minds are probably already made up. It’s just going to be a matter of who writes the decision now.

    If only.

    No doubt the rulings of that court would be labeled “white supremacy.”

    • #38
  9. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Lilly B:

    JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?

    Should’a asked Roberts back in 2015 on Obamacare. And Kennedy back in 2015 on marriage. And Kennedy before that on Roe. And herself in every decision where everyone knew she’d take the lefty position without regard to the meaning of the written Constitution. And on and on.

    Exactly this, she seems blissfully unaware that that particular horse long ago bolted the barn.

    • #39
  10. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Lilly B:

    JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?

    Should’a asked Roberts back in 2015 on Obamacare. And Kennedy back in 2015 on marriage. And Kennedy before that on Roe. And herself in every decision where everyone knew she’d take the lefty position without regard to the meaning of the written Constitution. And on and on.

    Exactly this, she seems blissfully unaware that that particular horse long ago bolted the barn.

    And she was riding the horse.

    • #40
  11. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Lilly B:

    JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?

    Should’a asked Roberts back in 2015 on Obamacare. And Kennedy back in 2015 on marriage. And Kennedy before that on Roe. And herself in every decision where everyone knew she’d take the lefty position without regard to the meaning of the written Constitution. And on and on.

    Exactly this, she seems blissfully unaware that that particular horse long ago bolted the barn.

    Or, she is fully aware and engaging in the left’s standard operating procedure of lying in conformity with the Party program.

     

    • #41
  12. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    DonG (CAGW is a hoax) (View Comment):

    Boney Cole (View Comment):
    I guess her intent is to scare conservatives into voting to retain abortion so that leftists won’t take away gun rights.

    I assume Roberts is on her side, so she was just talking to Kavanaugh. The SCOTUS questions are usually intended for another Justice.

    No. She was talking to Gorsuch, who colluded with Roberts and the left in violating and gutting the true 1st Amendment, as written and ratified, just as their predecessors willfully violated and gutted the 14th Amendment shortly after it was ratified. Gorsuch did so in his outrageous, lawless, political opinion redefining “sex” from what it meant in federal law, in order to expose true Christian churches and people to lawfare in the false name of sexual identity. In doing so, he deliberately stood the First Freedom acknowledged in our First Amendment on its head.

    Gorsuch left the Catholic Church for the Episcopalian Church when he married into the Anglican/Episcopalian church. Both are mostly spiritually dead and fully embrace and advocate open sexual defiance of the small “o” orthodox, small “c” catholic Christian faith. Gorsuch knowingly put Christians who do not conform to the regime and regime approved/affirming religion back in the position of the Puritans, Catholics, and other dissenters from the state religion of the British Empire. He wants modern dissenters from the state approved dogma harried relentlessly into conformity with his and the regime’s beliefs.

    Gorsuch will likely rule to keep his new church’s true sacrament of abortion on demand.

    • #42
  13. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Lilly B (View Comment):

    Now that I’ve had the chance to read a little further, there’s more “wisdom” from Sotomayor to share:

    JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So when does the life of a woman and putting her at risk enter the calculus? Meaning, right now, forcing women who are poor — and that’s 75 percent of the population and much higher percentage of those women in Mississippi who elect abortions before viability — they are put at a tremendously greater risk of medical complications and ending their life, 14 times greater to give birth to a child full term, than it is to have an abortion before viability.
    And now the state is saying to these
    women, we can choose not only to physically complicate your existence, put you at medical risk, make you poorer by the choice because we believe what?

    There’s a lot wrong with her reasoning here, but I can’t help but focus on the word “poorer.” I think a woman’s life is only “poorer” from giving birth (and raising the child herself) if you only think in material terms, and maybe not even then. To bring another person into the world when the alternative is to forcibly terminate that person’s life, is not to diminish the life of the mother.

    I’m pretty sure I am financially disadvantaged by my children (and now they’re old enough to want more expensive Christmas presents), but they enrich my life and the lives of family, friends, teachers, coaches, etc. Hopefully, they’ll create families of their own in time. Justice Sotomayor’s line of questioning reminds me that she doesn’t have any children of her own.

    She also denied fetuses experience pain.  She is full throated pro-abortion.  She is the absolute worst on the bench.

    • #43
  14. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    He really is a failure as a conservative appointee human being.

    Fixed it for you.

    LOL, though I see your point, that’s a bit much. 

    • #44
  15. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Manny (View Comment):
    She also denied fetuses experience pain.

    Remind me again: which side is the party of science?

    • #45
  16. Tyrion Lannister Inactive
    Tyrion Lannister
    @TyrionLannister

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    Roberts will cave. It’s what he does best. There is a strain of conservative that believes the appearance of things is more important than their substance. Or, rather, the appearance of subscribing to the myth of something – such as the ‘independence’ of the Court – is more important than the reality – upholding the constitution. Even when he knows in his heart of hearts that those to the (nominal) left of him don’t give a fig for anything but political results.

    That’s probably. However, he also doesn’t like narrow decisions. He may go with the conservatives to make this a decisive 6-3 vote. But we’ll have to see. He really is a failure as a conservative appointee.

    Better than Gore would have given us.

    But you’re not wrong.

    That’s a fair point too.  I find Sotomayor to be shameful and the worst justice of my admittedly short lifetime.  That said, she’s not the most frustrating.  Sotomayor is a reliable insane vote- I know that she’s awful and she never exceeds my low, low expectations for her.  But Roberts is the most frustrating to me because he blows with the wind and comes up with idiotic decisions to “protect” the judicial branch as he sees it.

    3 cases stand out to me as completely indefensible.

    1st, he twisted himself into a pretzel to turn Obamacare into a tax, when the Obama admin specifically argued it wasn’t a tax, in order to save it and not have to overturn an obviously unconstitutional law.  I’m not even a legal, constitutional, or historical scholar and I can see that on its face Obamacare is unconstitutional.  Shame on Roberts.

    2nd, Roberts sided against Trump in the DACA case when he said that Trump admin couldn’t end DACA in the way it did.  As Thomas pointed out, even though the original Obama decision was unlawful, Trump couldn’t do away with it in the same manner unless he provided a sufficient reason to do so (more or less).  This binds future admins to an unlawful law unless it meets the courts’ standard of ending the program.  He’s playing politics.

    3rd, he dissented when the court struck down the Texas abortion law, but then a few years later switched his vote and voted to strike down the Louisiana abortion law (which was essentially the exact same) because of stare decisis (how is 3 or 4 years enough time for law to be settled?).  He was for it, then he was against it.

    He’s a terrible Chief Justice.  He’s more concerned with the “legitimacy” of the court to the view of the public (as he incorrectly sees it), even as it overruns the constitution and the entire conservative half of the country loses respect for the institution because it won’t follow the law.

    • #46
  17. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    kedavis (View Comment):

    MDHahn (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Guruforhire (View Comment):

    The court didn’t survive roe v wade in the first place.

    True.

    I could also make a Futurama joke, but it would be in very bad taste.

    That episode may be my favorite.

    I wasn’t referring to a specific episode.

    Sometimes less posting is good posting.

    • #47
  18. dukenaltum Inactive
    dukenaltum
    @dukenaltum

    Following Red Sonia’s impeccable logic, it is truly tragic that the Supreme Court avoided all the obvious good that honoring the iron rule of precedent would have accrued to its institutional reputation and the republic when it overruled previous Supreme Court decisions for the last two centuries. 

     

    It might be that the Supreme Court was never intended to be what it has become: an unaccountable blight on the rule of law by a free people and their representatives.  

     

    • #48
  19. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Will they go berserk?  They’ll still have abortion in states where they dominate and probably most Democrats don’t know that.  Think of the money they can raise to help folks come to New York and California.

    • #49
  20. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Lilly B: Sotomayor

    I can’t stand that woman . . .

    So, bigoted against “wise latinas,” are ya?

    Only the ones proud that they are a wise latina and brag about it . . .

    • #50
  21. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):

    JoelB (View Comment):

    IIRC in an interview with Justice Thomas that was posted on Ricochet, he said that oral arguments usually have little bearing on the justices’ decisions. If they have seen the written briefs, then their minds are probably already made up. It’s just going to be a matter of who writes the decision now.

    I remember in one Law Talk pocast, someone (Troy or John) made a comment “What would it be like to have 9 Supreme Court Justice Richard Epsteins?”

    Epstein said something like, “Every decision would be 5-4.”

    Or something like that . . .

    • #51
  22. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    Roberts will cave. It’s what he does best. There is a strain of conservative that believes the appearance of things is more important than their substance. Or, rather, the appearance of subscribing to the myth of something – such as the ‘independence’ of the Court – is more important than the reality – upholding the constitution. Even when he knows in his heart of hearts that those to the (nominal) left of him don’t give a fig for anything but political results.

    That’s probably. However, he also doesn’t like narrow decisions. He may go with the conservatives to make this a decisive 6-3 vote. But we’ll have to see. He really is a failure as a conservative appointee.

    Better than Gore would have given us.

    But you’re not wrong.

    It just occurred to me.  Sotomayor was an Obama pick.  I don’t know if Gore would have picked worse but he could have picked better than Obama.  

    • #52
  23. Goldgeller Member
    Goldgeller
    @Goldgeller

    Guruforhire (View Comment):

    The court didn’t survive roe v wade in the first place.

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Lilly B:

    JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?

    Should’a asked Roberts back in 2015 on Obamacare. And Kennedy back in 2015 on marriage. And Kennedy before that on Roe. And herself in every decision where everyone knew she’d take the lefty position without regard to the meaning of the written Constitution. And on and on.

    I generally agree with this because I disagree with the decisions. Roe and Obergerfell are worth mentioning because the Court intervened on issues that were actively being addressed by the states and by the political system and these issues were not issues of interpreting something that was in the Constitution.

    At the same time, I tend towards thinking the argument Justice Sotomayor is making is wrong headed on empirical grounds. While the Court tends towards lagging public opinion on the decisions that it makes, it has made plenty of unpopular decisions before. Brown v. Board would be one of them. The Court essentially lets states ignore some of the more extensive margins of Heller and McDonald. Obergerfell upset a lot of people. Generally the Court has always muddled along. People outside very highly motivated talking heads in the news don’t care that much. That’s why her question is wrong headed. At the end of the day it will be but one of many rulings the Court makes and state legislatures/ executives will respond accordingly. 

    • #53
  24. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    If the Democrats are unable to steal the next election we can fix matters if we want to.    They have no intention of allowing honest elections, that should be obvious but may not succeed.   We have to find a way to win, and if that proves impossible we’ll have to pull out but the same folks who would steal the election will try to fix it so states can’t pull out, so we have to plan for both.   We’re not coming to grips with who these people are.  The treatment of the disease shows us who they are.  

    • #54
  25. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Lilly B (View Comment):

    Now that I’ve had the chance to read a little further, there’s more “wisdom” from Sotomayor to share:

    JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So when does the life of a woman and putting her at risk enter the calculus? Meaning, right now, forcing women who are poor — and that’s 75 percent of the population and much higher percentage of those women in Mississippi who elect abortions before viability — they are put at a tremendously greater risk of medical complications and ending their life, 14 times greater to give birth to a child full term, than it is to have an abortion before viability.
    And now the state is saying to these
    women, we can choose not only to physically complicate your existence, put you at medical risk, make you poorer by the choice because we believe what?

    There’s a lot wrong with her reasoning here, but I can’t help but focus on the word “poorer.” I think a woman’s life is only “poorer” from giving birth (and raising the child herself) if you only think in material terms, and maybe not even then. To bring another person into the world when the alternative is to forcibly terminate that person’s life, is not to diminish the life of the mother.

    I’m pretty sure I am financially disadvantaged by my children (and now they’re old enough to want more expensive Christmas presents), but they enrich my life and the lives of family, friends, teachers, coaches, etc. Hopefully, they’ll create families of their own in time. Justice Sotomayor’s line of questioning reminds me that she doesn’t have any children of her own.

    Comments like that by Justice Sotomayor reinforce the lack of respect I have for her intellect and legal reasoning (I am a lawyer). And, that particular comment betrays her supposed concern for institutional reputation. The quoted comment is exactly the type of policy tradeoff that a legislative body debates. It is not how we define what is or is not a fundamental right. She is the one creating the impression that the court’s decision is primarily political. 

    • #55
  26. colleenb Member
    colleenb
    @colleenb

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Lilly B: Sotomayor

    I can’t stand that woman . . .

    So, bigoted against “wise latinas,” are ya?

    Shouldn’t that be ‘wise latinxs’?

    • #56
  27. colleenb Member
    colleenb
    @colleenb

    Manny (View Comment):

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):

    JoelB (View Comment):

    IIRC in an interview with Justice Thomas that was posted on Ricochet, he said that oral arguments usually have little bearing on the justices’ decisions. If they have seen the written briefs, then their minds are probably already made up. It’s just going to be a matter of who writes the decision now.

    He’s the giant of our times on the Court.

    I agree but I think Alito is a sleeper. He, of course, is not the lightening rod that Thomas is but he has been solidly Constitutional and conservative in his decisions and writings.

    • #57
  28. John Hanson Coolidge
    John Hanson
    @JohnHanson

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Tyrion Lannister (View Comment):

    MDHahn (View Comment):

    Boney Cole (View Comment):

    I guess her intent is to scare conservatives into voting to retain abortion so that leftists won’t take away gun rights. Only problem is that they will take them if they can, regardless. And everyone in the room listening to her knows that. Leftist theater, just because she enjoys it, and because she will be congratulated by her peers for her performance. Good work if you can get it.

    The goal is clearly to try and work the refs. In this case that means the Chief, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. They are the institutionalists on the Court and most likely to go for a narrow ruling–uphold MS law and not overrule Roe.

    I hate that type of “questioning” and I don’t know that it will work. I certainly hope it doesn’t. We now get to wait until June to find out.

    According to NR the pro- abortion side didn’t leave any wiggle room for a negotiated middle ground- it’s all or nothing. If true, I could see Roberts joining the conservatives for 2 reasons:

    1- so he can make the decision more legitimate (in his mind) by making it a larger majority.

    2- so he gets to choose who writes the opinion (likely himself so he can water it down).

    I expect the vote to go 5-4 one way or the other. I have hope we come out with a win.

    If it comes out as a 5-4 “win” then I would expect court-packing to begin soon.

    Yes but this decision will only be announced on the last day in late June, and congress won’t get it done over the summer, so maybe theyll run out of time to try it.  Would also need to get rid of fillibuster in the Senate, so they may not be able to pack it.

    • #58
  29. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    John Hanson (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Tyrion Lannister (View Comment):

    MDHahn (View Comment):

    Boney Cole (View Comment):

    I guess her intent is to scare conservatives into voting to retain abortion so that leftists won’t take away gun rights. Only problem is that they will take them if they can, regardless. And everyone in the room listening to her knows that. Leftist theater, just because she enjoys it, and because she will be congratulated by her peers for her performance. Good work if you can get it.

    The goal is clearly to try and work the refs. In this case that means the Chief, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. They are the institutionalists on the Court and most likely to go for a narrow ruling–uphold MS law and not overrule Roe.

    I hate that type of “questioning” and I don’t know that it will work. I certainly hope it doesn’t. We now get to wait until June to find out.

    According to NR the pro- abortion side didn’t leave any wiggle room for a negotiated middle ground- it’s all or nothing. If true, I could see Roberts joining the conservatives for 2 reasons:

    1- so he can make the decision more legitimate (in his mind) by making it a larger majority.

    2- so he gets to choose who writes the opinion (likely himself so he can water it down).

    I expect the vote to go 5-4 one way or the other. I have hope we come out with a win.

    If it comes out as a 5-4 “win” then I would expect court-packing to begin soon.

    Yes but this decision will only be announced on the last day in late June, and congress won’t get it done over the summer, so maybe theyll run out of time to try it. Would also need to get rid of fillibuster in the Senate, so they may not be able to pack it.

    They will stuff every ballot box in the country to win next time.  They’re in it to win and once they win the game will be over.

    • #59
  30. MDHahn Coolidge
    MDHahn
    @MDHahn

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a hoax) (View Comment):

    Boney Cole (View Comment):
    I guess her intent is to scare conservatives into voting to retain abortion so that leftists won’t take away gun rights.

    I assume Roberts is on her side, so she was just talking to Kavanaugh. The SCOTUS questions are usually intended for another Justice.

    No. She was talking to Gorsuch, who colluded with Roberts and the left in violating and gutting the true 1st Amendment, as written and ratified, just as their predecessors willfully violated and gutted the 14th Amendment shortly after it was ratified. Gorsuch did so in his outrageous, lawless, political opinion redefining “sex” from what it meant in federal law, in order to expose true Christian churches and people to lawfare in the false name of sexual identity. In doing so, he deliberately stood the First Freedom acknowledged in our First Amendment on its head.

    Gorsuch left the Catholic Church for the Episcopalian Church when he married into the Anglican/Episcopalian church. Both are mostly spiritually dead and fully embrace and advocate open sexual defiance of the small “o” orthodox, small “c” catholic Christian faith. Gorsuch knowingly put Christians who do not conform to the regime and regime approved/affirming religion back in the position of the Puritans, Catholics, and other dissenters from the state religion of the British Empire. He wants modern dissenters from the state approved dogma harried relentlessly into conformity with his and the regime’s beliefs.

    Gorsuch will likely rule to keep his new church’s true sacrament of abortion on demand.

    That’s massively unfair to Gorsuch. How do you know what his faith is like, and why should it matter? 

    I wasn’t the biggest fan of his Bostock decision, but this is an absurd attack. In the last abortion case, June Medical, Gorsuch joined Alito’s dissent and wrote his own attacking the majority for ignoring court precedent to reach a preferred outcome. He also made clear the he is not afraid to overrule bad precedent. Gorsuch isn’t a squish.

    I think the MS law will be upheld–which by itself is a huge win! The only question is whether Roe/Casey are struck down in the process. The two wild cards on that score are the Chief and ACB. They’re institutionalists and are more in favor of incremental change. We’ll know soon enough. 

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.