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
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    8 Comment threads
    19 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    14 Comment authors
    Carlos PerduetrumpedCarlosPerdueDavid CodreaHanzo Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    Larry Brickey
    Guest
    Larry Brickey

    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.

    Carlos Perdue
    Guest
    Carlos Perdue

    Of course not. He’s listening to the screwed up NRA. Can’t expect otherwise

    Hanzo
    Guest
    Hanzo

    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.

    Carlos Perdue
    Guest
    Carlos Perdue

    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.

    John V Waltz
    Guest
    John V Waltz

    Send Jeff Flake, who voted for Loretta Lyinch (? spelling) supports For such!
    Enough said!!

    Clark Kent
    Guest
    Clark Kent

    Drop the other shoe, Dave. Who do YOU think would (not should) be confirmed? P.S. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

    Carlos Perdue
    Guest
    Carlos Perdue

    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

    Danne
    Guest
    Danne

    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.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    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?

    Carlos Perdue
    Guest
    Carlos Perdue

    That would be awesome but Never happen. Unlike LaPierre, I doubt he likes Cox

    Carlos Perdue
    Guest
    Carlos Perdue

    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”… Read more »

    Hanzo
    Guest
    Hanzo

    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.

    Carlos Perdue
    Guest
    Carlos Perdue

    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… Read more »

    Hanzo
    Guest
    Hanzo

    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.

    CarlosPerdue
    Guest
    CarlosPerdue

    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

    Carlos Perdue
    Guest
    Carlos Perdue

    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!

    trumped
    Guest
    trumped

    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.

    Carlos Perdue
    Guest
    Carlos Perdue

    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.

    Christopher
    Guest
    Christopher

    Can we please get the illustrious senator tammy duckworth’s take on all of this before we jump to any conclusions?

    DamDoc
    Guest
    DamDoc

    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….

    Mack
    Guest
    Mack

    David, I don’t believe John Sununu ever apologized for his David Souter debacle. Progressives ended up loving the guy:

    * http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/05/justice_heartbreaker.html
    [SNIP]
    “Justice David Souter is a heartbreaker. … I mean that Justice Souter broke Republican hearts when he proved not to be what John Sununu promised the first President Bush would be a “home run” for conservatism, …”

    Carlos Perdue
    Guest
    Carlos Perdue

    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

    Hanzo
    Guest
    Hanzo

    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.

    Mack
    Guest
    Mack

    This merits SERIOUS discussion. All gun rights activists need to read this.

    Ray Workman
    Guest
    Ray Workman

    Just the fact that he lives in Boulder (Berkeley East) is enough to disqualify him in my opinion!

    Sarah
    Guest
    Sarah

    That’s what I wondered.