United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: SAY NO TO NEIL GORSUCH FOR SUPREME COURT
Source:
News With views
URL Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh387.htm
Published: Jan 26, 2017
Author: Kelleigh Nelson
Post Date: 2017-02-03 13:16:58 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 6028
Comments: 16
One of the reasons I changed — one of the primary reasons — a friend of mine’s wife was pregnant, in this case married. She was pregnant and he didn’t really want the baby. And he was telling me the story,” Trump told Brody. “He was crying as he was telling me the story. He ends up having the baby and the baby is the apple of his eye. It’s the greatest thing that’s ever happened to him. And you know here’s a baby that wasn’t going to be let into life. And I heard this, and some other stories, and I am pro-life. —Donald J. Trump Our 45th President told us he would put pro-life judges on our Supreme Court. However, those who helped him with the list of conservative judges were both the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation (called Heretic Foundation by many of my well-educated friends). The latest choice we’re now hearing is at the top of the list is Neil Gorsuch. Neil Gorsuch is NOT pro-life. His selection would violate Trump's pledge to nominate a pro-life justice to the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade would not be overturned for 40 years if the 49-year-old Gorsuch is picked. Forty million more babies would be murdered in their mothers’ wombs with this choice. The pro-life movement has only a few hours or days to object, protest, criticize, and veto the nomination of this pro-choice candidate. Trump floats these trial balloons to see if people object. We must strongly object, and please speak out loudly now. Gorsuch has never said or written anything pro-life. Andy Schlafly knew him in law school and afterwards, and has reviewed his opinions and his book. He's written multiple opinions that demonstrate he is not pro-life. For example, in the case of Pino v. U.S., Gorsuch discussed whether a 20-week-old "nonviable fetus" had the same rights as a "viable fetus." Gorsuch, showing that he is not pro-life, indicated that his answer is "no" unless the Oklahoma Supreme Court specifically found rights for the "nonviable fetus." Rather than render a pro-life ruling, Gorsuch punted this issue to the Oklahoma Supreme Court for it to decide. Gorsuch's approach is similar to the unjust approach based on viability that underlies Roe v. Wade. More information, including how Gorsuch opposes overturning precedent even when it is wrong, is here. He supports special rights for transgenders, too. And he is no Scalia, as Gorsuch was not even on the Law Review in law school. We've been down this road before, and it doesn't work for Republican presidents. Andy Schlafly recently spoke at a large conservative conference in Michigan, a state Trump carried by barely 10,000 votes based on immense efforts by pro-lifers there. That margin disappears if Trump is misled to break his pro-life pledge for the Supreme Court. Evangelicals spoke out and vetoed the previous top choice, Bill Pryor. Now it is urgent that pro-lifers speak out immediately and veto Neil Gorsuch. These choices are coming from the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation. The Federalist Society is attempting to get a pro-Roe judge chosen instead of another Scalia. The Federalist Society, is allegedly an organization of conservatives and libertarians seeking reform of the current American legal system in accordance with a textualistic or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. It is one of the nation's most influential legal organizations, masquerading as something they are not. The Federalist Society began at Yale Law School, (home of Skull and Bones), Harvard Law School (that bastion of higher liberal learning), and the University of Chicago Law School, (home of Bill Ayers and where protestors disallowed Trump rally). It originally started as a student organization which challenged what its members perceived as the orthodox American liberal ideology found in most law schools. Doesn’t this actually make you laugh when these three Ivy league schools are known as having a Marxist agenda? Pro-Lifers Need to Respond There are ways to respond, and as my friend Devvy Kidd said, “We have to flood the White House with calls, tweets, emails. This has worked in the past if enough people do it.” The comment phone number is: 202-456-1111. The caller simply needs to say: I strenuously object to Neil Gorsuch as a supreme court justice nominee. He is not pro-life. I urge President Trump to nominate: Justice Charles Canady - number one choice, or: Judge Jennifer Elrod or Judge Edith Jones You can also tweet Donald Trump, Kellyanne Conway, Jeff Sessions, Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Sean Spicer, etc. Simply tweet, “Gorsuch is not pro-life. Choose true pro-lifers…Charles Canady, Judge Elrod or Edith Jones.” You can email the White House here. You can comment on Face Book here. Another option is to send a fax signed by as many people as possible. If people belong to a church or some group, just do a short letter with all the signatures and fax it. Phone calls can be ignored, but a pile of 50,000 faxes can't. Time is of the essence. WH fax: 202-456-7890
Neil Gorsuch is Not Pro-Life
Who is the Federalist Society?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 12.
#9. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, hondo68, tooconservative (#0)
The pro-life movement has only a few hours or days to object, protest, criticize, and veto the nomination of this pro-choice candidate. Trump floats these trial balloons to see if people object. We must strongly object, and please speak out loudly now. Gorsuch has never said or written anything pro-life. Andy Schlafly knew him in law school and afterwards, and has reviewed his opinions and his book. He's written multiple opinions that demonstrate he is not pro-life. For example, in the case of Pino v. U.S., Gorsuch discussed whether a 20-week-old "nonviable fetus" had the same rights as a "viable fetus." Gorsuch, showing that he is not pro-life, indicated that his answer is "no" unless the Oklahoma Supreme Court specifically found rights for the "nonviable fetus." Rather than render a pro-life ruling, Gorsuch punted this issue to the Oklahoma Supreme Court for it to decide. Gorsuch's approach is similar to the unjust approach based on viability that underlies Roe v. Wade. Kelleigh Nelson is an unmitigated asshole. Deckard is a persistent purveyor of FAKE NEWS by YELLOW JOURNALISTS. Most of this article plagiarized as well. Let's examine the latest example of FAKE NEWS by actually looking at Pino v. U.S. A casual reader may have been led to believe this was about an abortion case. It's not. Pino sued for damages asserting wrongful death of a 20-week non-viable fetus, delivered stillborn at an Indian Hospital in Oklahoma. The parents sought dfamages alleging negligent medical care. The case turns on an interpretation of OKLAHOMA law. The Pinos asked the district court to certify the question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The District Court declined. The Pinos then moved the 10th Circuit Court to certify their question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. In the 29 October 2007 opinion, below, Judge Gorsuch upheld the Pino request and certified the question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Oklahoma Supreme Court answered the question and Judge Gorsuch issued the 2008 Order and Judgment stating, "That court's answer requires us to reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment in this case and to remand for further proceedings." Judge Gorsuch noted, "the Oklahoma Supreme Cort subsequently answered our certified question in the affirmative, olding that the state's wrongful death statute did afford a cause of action for te wrongful death of a nonviable, stillborn fetus as of September 1-2, 2003." As stated, the case turned on an interpretation of OKLAHOMA law, and the date on which certain laws took effect. The ultimate authority on STATE law is the highest court in the STATE, not a Federal court. Judge Gorsuch granted the request of Pino and submitted the certified question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court to interpret Oklahoma law. http://eppc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Gorsuch-is-NOT-pro-life-Supreme-Court.pdf Moreover, Kelleigh Nelson freely plagiarized an email by Andy Schlafly of January 24, 2017. [Kelleigh Nelson excerpt you may recognize, except for the signature] For example, in the case of Pino v. U.S., Gorsuch discussed whether a 20-week-old "nonviable fetus" had the same rights as a "viable fetus." Gorsuch, showing that he is not pro-life, indicated that his answer is "no" unless the Oklahoma Supreme Court specially found rights for the "nonviable fetus." Rather than render a pro-life ruling, Gorsuch punted this issue to the Oklahoma Supreme Court for it to decide. Gorsuch's approach is similar to the unjust approach based on viability that underlies Roe v. Wade. More information, including how Gorsuch opposes overturning precedent even when it is wrong, is here. He supports special rights for transgenders, too. And he is no Scalia, as Gorsuch was not even on the Law Review in law school. We've been down this road before, with the first President Bush breaking his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. It doesn't work for Republican presidents. I spoke last weekend at a large conservative conference in Michigan, a state Trump carried by barely 10,000 votes based on immense efforts by pro-lifers there. That margin disappears if Trump is misled to break his pro-life pledge for the Supreme Court. Evangelicals spoke out and vetoed Bill Pryor. Now it is urgent that pro-lifers speak out immediately and veto Neil Gorsuch. Andy Schlafly, Esq. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By constant use of these highly dubious sources, Deckard harms his own cause. The only people who will agree with him are those who are already on his side. In other words, kooks. Just because you can convince some handful of people to believe some of the stories in National Enquirer (and other scandal-sheet websites) doesn't mean that you are making any bridge to the mainstream and the voters. But in the internet era, there is always a handful of weirdos/malcontents/rubes to believe almost anything you want to peddle. It ends us being a carnival sideshow as more and more "alternative voices" flood in to sell books/videos to the rubes or try to pump up their sad-ass YouTube channel they're hoping to make a living off of. It's not as though this is unique to the Truther sect either. We see plenty of this same hucksterism on the Right and among some of the nominal Christian sites, all clawing feverishly for clicks and enough revenue to try to build up some steady market share.
It worked for Breitbart, they're even in the WH! If at first you don't succeed, Kook, kooK, k0oK again. Dying seems to have helped too.
Any word on whether Gatlin has called the White House to tell Trump that he is employing a fake news purveyor as his Assistant and Chief Strategist? Maybe Tooconservative can make the call himself. He seems to have the same strategy as Gatlin - label any opposing views as "kookery"
#15. To: Deckard (#12)
That's not true. There are plenty of articles that I dislike or disagree with but I don't accuse them of being kookery. Kookery is as kookery does. The truth is that the kookier something is, the more you like posting here at LF.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest The latest choice we’re now hearing is at the top of the list is Neil Gorsuch. Neil Gorsuch is NOT pro-life. His selection would violate Trump's pledge to nominate a pro-life justice to the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade would not be overturned for 40 years if the 49-year-old Gorsuch is picked. Forty million more babies would be murdered in their mothers’ wombs with this choice.
Rather than render a pro-life ruling, Gorsuch punted this issue to the Oklahoma Supreme Court for it to decide.
Gorsuch has never said or written anything pro-life. I knew him in law school and afterwards, and I've reviewed his opinions and his book. He's written multiple opinions that demonstrate he's not pro-life.
#10. To: nolu chan, Deckard (#9)
Kelleigh Nelson is an unmitigated asshole. Deckard is a persistent purveyor of FAKE NEWS by YELLOW JOURNALISTS. Most of this article plagiarized as well.
#11. To: Tooconservative (#10)
all clawing feverishly for clicks and enough revenue to try to build up some steady market share.
#12. To: hondo68 (#11)
It worked for Breitbart, they're even in the WH!
Replies to Comment # 12. He seems to have the same strategy as Gatlin - label any opposing views as "kookery"
End Trace Mode for Comment # 12.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]