Gorsuch Religious Influences and More Fair Game to Question

By David Codrea

My first thought on seeing this was to laugh and wonder what the going rate is for a Senate vote these days. My next was to ask “Why should I?”

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Is Gorsuch a secret liberal?” an analysis in The Hill speculates. “Trump, GOP have reason to wonder.

“President Eisenhower …  said his two biggest mistakes were sitting on the Supreme Court: Justices Earl Warren and William Brennan. Both were Republicans,” the piece explains. “Justice David Souter, appointed by George H.W. Bush and Harry Blackmun appointed by President Nixon, turned out to be liberals.”

The assessment goes on to list “liberal signs” for Judge Neil Gorsuch, a prominent one being his membership in St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, which “has embraced very liberal positions on a variety of issues [and] ‘does a lot of social justice and advocacy.’”

No fair bring that up?  After all, we don’t know if Gorsuch is a true-believing member.

Exactly.

But even if he is, his religious beliefs should be off-limits. We don’t know that they would sway his decisions.

Exactly.

Besides, desperate to establish themselves to the press as champions of tolerance, all leading Republicans have said, in no uncertain terms, that religion shouldn’t matter in high public office. They loudly and publicly distanced themselves from then-candidate Ben Carson after he said he does not believe Islam is consistent with the Constitution, and that he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”

Hogwash. If you’d like to see how consistently they’d hold to that principle, ask them if they’d give the same answer if a candidate practiced another ancient and established religion, one that is recognized by the government, one with practitioners around the world, and one that involves itself in vigorous legal and outreach actions centered around all kinds of Constitutional issues, including, as a plus for those who value “progressive” causes, women's reproductive rights and same sex marriages.

I'm talking, of course, about Satanism. And while that may seem an absurd jump (even though it is wholly logically consistent, especially when we’re talking matters of spiritual belief), those who believe in the destructiveness of that – and of radical Islam – to our Constitutional Republic, might also find Episcopal activism on “social justice” troubling.

It's not really about religion at all, is it?

Of specific interest to this readership is the church’s position on guns. They urge their members to be activists, and to tell Congress:

“I am a constituent and an Episcopalian, and I am calling to urge [name of member of Congress here] to support policies that will change the culture of violence in our country. We need legislation that limits sales of military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, requires effective background checks for all gun purchases, provides for better access to mental health services, and directs attention to gun trafficking.”

Then we have the church’s position on immigration and refugees:

The Episcopal Church is committed to welcoming the stranger and advocating for a humane and proportional immigration system. For more than a century The Episcopal Church has been engaged in the ministry of welcoming immigrants and refugees, walking with them as they begin their new lives in our communities and advocating for immigration policies that protect families from separation, offer meaningful access to citizenship, and respect the dignity of every human being.

And they have millions of reasons for culturally terraforming the nation and ensuring an eventual unchallengeable Democrat/anti-gun majority in the legislatures and the courts:

Add to this the Episcopal positions on Obamacare and on wealth redistributing “global warming/climate change/environmental justice.” We’ll not find much in agreement with the reasons conservatives in general and gun owners in particular supported, voted for, and have been consistently defending Donald Trump against all comers.

It could be there’s no cause for concern here. Many of us come from families with religious heritages, and we view it more like a history or tradition, and not all that relevant to our professional and political decision-making.

That could very well be the case here. I hope it is. But since Gorsuch may be holding “legal” recognition of your freedom in his hands, wouldn’t you like to know?

Doesn’t President Trump think it’s in his – and our – interests to get a better handle on the guy he wants to entrust his legacy to in the courts? It certainly makes it fair to ask who advised him that Gorsuch was the right man for the job, and if that’s counsel he’ll continue to seek. It also makes it fair to ask if, as a businessman, Trump would be inclined to hire a key executive when he doesn’t know if the prospect will support or undermine his business plan, and who will play coy if asked in an interview.

Did he make his billions buying pigs in pokes, and sight unseen?

And that brings us to the specific Second Amendment questions I’d like to see Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans (beholden to gun owners all) ask Judge Gorsuch in his confirmation hearing. While we can’t expect him to comment on specifics of a case that may come before him, there’s no reason why he can’t weigh in on how well he understands the issue. Go ahead and read the questions at that link, and see if there are any that “We the People” don’t deserve answers to.

But for whatever reason, the Big Three gun groups, the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation and even Gun Owners of America (for what I found to be a very uncompelling reason)  have all come out swinging for Gorsuch based on no more of a given justification than he thinks “the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”

“Lightly.” What the hell does that even mean, and how do you square it with “shall not be infringed”?

Also apparently uninterested: The afore-mentioned Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I’ve urged all of them to ask Judge Gorsuch the questions, but I’m real easy to ignore. Unless they hear from significant numbers, they have no motivation to even acknowledge, let alone comply with my request. And I sent my concerns to The White House, not that the staffer rushed it to the Oval Office.

Throughout, I have received one non-supportive comment, not actually opposed to vetting Gorsuch so much as resigned that there’s no point.  My correspondent surmised he’s “as good as we are going to get.”

How does he know?

He also asked if I remembered Earl Warren.

“Of course,” I replied.  “He was appointed in a recess and confirmed months later by voice vote, with everyone accepting meaningless and equivocal weasel words on what a great ‘conservative’ he'd be. Why do you think I want Judiciary to nail this guy down on specifics? Assuming you followed the link and read my Gorsuch piece, why wouldn't you want to see the questions asked and answered?”

That question goes to you as well, along with a few more.

Did we dodge the Hillary bullet only to welcome a wolf into the fold? We’re gonna have to live with this guy and how he rules, many of us for the rest of our lives. How would it hurt to get a better feel for his convictions – and to pass on him if he looks to be bad news? Even if he does think daring to question a judge’s conduct is “disheartening and demoralizing” (Note that last interpretation is disputed. Maybe that should be another line of confirmation inquiry.)

The next time a gun group asks you for help to get Gorsuch confirmed, ask them why. If they tell you he’ll be good for gun owners, ask them how they know.

If you’re good with what they’ve told you to date, do nothing.

If you think we’re supposed to finally be doing things differently and draining the damn swamp, and if you believe we’ve been given a last chance of sorts to actually make some sort of difference with the rejection of Hillary, then please add your voice to mine.

Also see:

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 27 thoughts on “Gorsuch Religious Influences and More Fair Game to Question

    1. Do you suppose Trump knows all this and still chose Gorsuch? And stick the Satanism. It’s not really part of the hearings to come.

    2. I’m not saying you don’t have a point, but that’s a loooottt of speculation and even hyperbole there. On the other hand, great point, we’ve seen this before.

      Honestly, I was hoping Trump would stick it right in their faces and nominate Judge Pryor.

      1. Why should we care what you were “honestly” hoping for or trust your judgment, since you’d nominate a gun grabbing police state dork like Bork if you got the chance, and you go ad hominem in a sad attempt to hide your ignorance? Talk about hyperbole. You’re all hyperbole and no facts.

      1. Grab your socks Clarkie. What a weak stupid comment. As if he’s the only pro-gun potential nom and can’t be questioned. Dorky Wuss GOPe “reasoning” like yours is why things are so screwed up we elected Trump in the first place. And why we’re stuck with traitors like John Obamacare Roberts

        1. Agreed, they has us believing John Roberts was conservative until he sold us all out on obomacare. Due caution is advised here but, don’t expect that level of scrutiny to come from the mentality inhabiting congress.

          1. Anyone can be a justice on the supreme court. They do not have to be a lawyer or even have any law training. Why not put David Codrea on the bench?

        2. Crickets Chirping… What’s up Cuck Kent, run out of profound genius GOPe cliches like “The perfect is the enemy of the good”?

          Mediocre GOPe wussies are the enemy of the good, the better, the excellent, *and* the perfect. That’s why we voted for Trump. We’re tired of you sophisticated beltway geniuses sticking us with Suters, Robertses & Kennedys and trying stick us with Myerses, Borks and Dorks. For that matter we’re tired of you sticking us with Sotomayors, Kagans, Holders, Hamiltons, & Obamacares. NRA-GOPe geniuses like you who mindlessly & disingenuously chant “the perfect is the enemy of the good” are the same ones who either passive-aggressively backed them (NRA) when they could’ve easily killed them, or actively worked for them (Lindsey Graham).

          NRA had a dozen phony “A” rated Democrats when Sotomayor, Kagan, Holder & Hamilton were confirmed & Obamacare passed. None anti-gun politician can survive in pro-gun states like Montana without phony A grades, endorsements, suckered volunteers, and donations from NRA. Worse than doing nothing to stop those noms, NRA passive-aggressively collaborated, making sure their phony pro-gun Dems & RINOs like Queen Lindsey of Carolina knew they would keep their “A” ratings. Anti-gun Obamacare passed cloture by ONE vote. NRA could’ve easily killed it, but instead genius LaPierre and his pet Cox worked with their “gun rights champion” bedpal Harry Reid to “fix” it, then pretended it wasn’t an anti-gun vehicle to massively expand prohibited person status without trial by jury … like they did by endorsing and promoting Carolyn McCarthy’s Veterans Disarmament law. And now they advertise on Veterans sites to trick good vets out of their money to help “fix” it… “Fix” what NRA broke in the first place … Protection racket meets confidence game.

          GOPe geniuses like Cuck Kent are responsible for massive damage to America.

          @Carl0sPerdue

          1. Only 1 problem here, your maligning of Judge Robert Bork. “Stuck us with Bork”? WTF were you on when you vomited that little part onto your screen? Why do you think the left was apoplectic over Reagan nominating Bork? You really disservice the rest of your post by making an asinine comment like that. Seriously.

            1. 1 problem here. You claim to be pro-gun and yet you wrote that asinine comment. You don’t either know much about Bork or you’re a gun grabber. Even the NRA under LaPierre opposed Bork, big time. Bork was a pompous, overrated police state d-bag who claimed 2A was a collective right, etc. At least read Wikipedia before you spray any more poo:

              “Bork denounced the ‘NRA view’ as the ‘belief that the constitution guarantees a right to Teflon-coated bullets.’ …. argued that the Second Amendment merely guarantees a right to participate in a government militia.” Is that your POV?

              I know this because I lived through it as a loyal American gun rights activist. What did you do, read a tweet about what a genius “conservative” he was?

              The media hated Bork due to his abortion views, which were based on the asinine anti-American, police state POV that the Constitution doesn’t contain or imply a general right to privacy. And a lot of folks think he was automatically conservative because he converted to Catholicism. That’s a laugh.

              Bork did not respect a loyal AMERICAN view of the Constitution. There IS a right to privacy implied in many places, it just doesn’t give women the right to suck the brains out of 9 month old partially born babies. E.g.:

              “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

              “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

              I wrote “TRYING to stick us with Myerses, Borks and [OTHER] Dorks”, and I meant it. That’s right, we’re tired of being stuck with police state authority worshipers when there are other candidates to choose from. And Bork isn’t the only thing Reagan screwed up on, not by a long shot.

              Better do a lot of homework and get over your superficial authority-celebrity cult worship before doing another ignoranus airhead yap-attack. Next time ASK me a question first, then you won’t look so dumb. Seriously.

          2. You’re just another angry, paranoid dbag. Where’s the next conspiracy, cap’n? Yeah, I lived through everything you mentioned also. Funny your the only person I ever heard spout the bs you just did. Go back to infowars, but that would be a disservice to Alex Jones.

            1. That’s a pretty weak diversion even for an ignoranus like you. Anyone here can verify that NRA opposed your anti-gun Dork-Bork hero. So sad

            2. Crickets chirping…. Did you bother to go LEARN anything about Bork so you can worship one less celeb you know F-all about, save money on votive candles?

              Or just bend over, spray diversionary insults and run away? Waiting for you to man up and apologize. And Cuck Kent — probably your sock puppet — same M.O.

              RUN AWAY!

          3. Given that roberts actually wrote the opinion striking down obamacare, then rewrote it to favor the scheme the next day, I think he was more than likely blackmailed.

            Don’t get me wrong, I am not a fan of his or really anyone on the supreme court. But the bizarre series of events surrounding his decision leads me to believe someone affiliated with the obama regime made him an offer he could not refuse.

            1. Still another Bush family appointee with no honor or courage. American soldiers risk all, risk having their heads sawed off. What did Roberts risk compared to that? And what crap did he do to get blackmailed? Little boys? F him.

    3. Gorsuch will be interviewed by the senate critters… we should be asking the ones we “trust” to probe this issue… mine are anguish king and susan collins, so i can say i dont trust them, but you folks in red states, id get on the horn if i were you…. also, didnt trump have a second amendment advisory group? they should be screaming for answers….

      1. Nor has genius Ted Cruz apologized for creating John Obamacare Roberts, the “principled conservative like the President who nominated him” (campaigning in National Review). He can start making up for it by raising these issues with Gorsuch

        1. Ann Coulter was way ahead of the curve there. She was the only pop pundit, that I remember, to raise the fact that Roberts was, indeed, a stealth candidate. That’s why I felt Trump should have went with Judge Pryor and used the nuclear option.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *