Last night, President Trump tapped federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the empty seat on the Supreme Court.
Gorsuch is a right-leaning judge who once clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy. Gorsuch, 49, is among youngest of recent Supreme Court nominees (Justice Clarence Thomas was 43 when nominated, and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan were both 50.)
In 2013, he was part of the lower court that sided with Hobby Lobby. That’s the private company that successfully argued that Obamacare violated its religious beliefs by requiring it to cover birth control for its employees. Gorsuch is considered an “originalist” – meaning he believes the Constitution should be interpreted exactly how the Founding Fathers wrote it. If approved, he’d be filling the seat of another originalist, Justice Antonin Scalia, who died almost exactly a year ago.
Under the Constitution, the President nominates a Justice and the Senate has to approve. Last Congress, the Republican Party argued that they didn’t think President Obama should fill the seat in an election year. Obama went ahead and picked centrist federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland but since the GOP controlled Congress, it blocked Garland all year. Dems were less than pleased.
Supporters say this is exactly what they wanted: a right-leaning justice who’ll keep the Supremes to the right. Critics remember Trump’s campaign promise to appoint someone who’d overturn Roe v Wade – and worry Gorsuch could help make that happen.
What’s next? Gorsuch now has a job interview with the Senate. And since the Dems aren’t super thrilled to be interviewing Gorsuch, they’ll be giving him extra scrutiny. They may even choose to filibuster (read: block) his confirmation. If that happens, the GOP could ‘go nuclear’ – aka change the rules so they wouldn’t need the Dems to approve Trump’s pick at all.
Freedom of Religion: In Hobby Lobby Stores vs. Sebelius, Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion siding with the craft store and its owners arguing the courts should accept one’s interpretation of their faith’s requirements and that they were likely to succeed in claiming the ACA contraception mandate infringed on their freedom of religion.
Regulations: Gorsuch has also questioned the constitutionality of the current volume of federal regulations Caring Hearts Personal Home Services vs Burwell.
Guns: While not a Second Amendment question, Gorsuch has indicated disagreement with some convictions for a felon’s knowing possession of a firearm, suggesting that prosecutors must prove that the defendant both knew he or she was a felon and knew that he or she was in possession of the firearm (rather than just knowingly possessing a firearm being sufficient for conviction). In one such case, Gorsuch did note that “gun possession is often lawful and sometimes even protected as a matter of constitutional right,” but it was still settled on statutory rather than Second Amendment grounds. These cases are less an indication of Gorsuch’s views on gun rights, and rather evidence that — like Scalia — Gorsuch is an advocate for the rule of lenity. Conservative outlet American Thinker criticized Gorsuch for joining the majority opinion in U.S. v. Rodriguez, where the court cited Terry v. Ohio to uphold the legality of the search of a man who was found to be in possession of an illegal handgun. American Thinker wrote the case “causes us to have some concern about his understanding of the relationship between the government and an armed citizenry,” while acknowledging that the ruling was on Fourth Amendment grounds, not Second Amendment grounds.
As an ANA member, I feel it is inappropriate to comment on “right leaning” people as some of your members may indeed be conservatives and not “leftist liberals.” I’m guessing they also would not appreciate those kinds of references. Furthermore, if you wish to discuss guns and laws, save it for your personal social media accounts unless you are going to cite a specific relationship to NURSING. But if you must talk about criminals, please include the ones our previous leader let out of prison and the murderers and rapists who DO directly affect nursing as we care for their victims. Oh wait, they’re in sanctuary cities, protected by our previous “leader.”
Amen!
Thank you for this well written and informative article
I really appreciate your political actions
America has spoken. Do not jeopardize our organization’s strength by being overly outspoken on these controversially social issues.
This article along with the ANA president’s comments on the immigration ban are exactly the reason I am no longer going to support ANA. I am a “right leaning” registered nurse who believes in the rights of ALL Americans including the taxpayers. Please do NOT as an organization have an official stance saying you represent ALL nurses when in fact you only represent liberal and left leaning nurses. As a right leaning nurse, I personally do not agree with abortion however if that is your choice, go for it. Please do not ask me to help finance it. A woman makes the decision to have intercourse knowing that pregnancy is a possibility, then it is her responsibility to deal with it. I also do not mind giving people a hand up, but at the same time I do not agree with lifetime handouts in the form of government entitlements. It is not ok for ANY able bodied person to sit at home and do nothing while EXPECTING someone else to foot the bill for them. If a man does not work then he does not eat is a Biblical principle. There is nothing wrong with holding people accountable for their own choices. Furthermore, the last time I checked, gun laws do not fall under the ANA’s per view. That has nothing to do with nurses and how we deliver care or our practice rights. Please do not think you represent me on that front either.
Cathy,
Thank you for putting into words how I also feel. The country seems to have forgotten that our previous “leader” started this but it has actually taken our present leader to act on it. I feel the safety of America and her citizens should far out weigh the refugees wanting in. While I’m sure they are not all out to get us, I feel a 90 day ban is not unreasonable. As for abortion, I do not believe it should be used as birth control; there are other methods readily available today. I too, do not feel that I , as a taxpayer, should be made to help fund them either.
Thank you for your well versed post!
I have never been a true supporter of the ANA due to the obvious partisan stance taken by the organization. You most certainly do not represent ALL nurses as is obvious in the article. There are many, many “right-leaning” nurses who actually have the ability to think and use our brains to formulate our own thoughts instead of being force-fed the socialist agenda. You only represent those who are liberal left wing participants. To disparage Judge Gorsuch in such a manner is beneath a professional dialogue that should be expected of a national organization of professional nurses. I have the ability to speak (loudly) for myself as a nurse constituent since, as a conservative, I have NO support from the ANA. The former administration did a great job of dividing this entire country with the same rhetoric spewed in this article. As the man said, “Elections have consequences…” Get over it.
As ANA is concerned about the rights of stigmatized groups, I suggest that ANA include people (nurses) who hold non-liberal views. I am tired of the tolerance of intolerance. Please stop.
Karen, I completely agree with you. I have been a nurse for 35 years and only recently joined ANA in part because of my recently obtained BSN. One reason i hadn’t joined in the past was the liberal views, but thought I’d give it a chance after after using some research from the site. This position now make me question my decision once again. I’m glad to know that I’m not the only non-liberal thinker here!
Karen, Terri, Jimi, Cathy, and Cindy, thank you for voicing my concerns. I joined ANA about a year ago in order to “put my money where my mouth is” so to speak to support nurses who were out there fighting for our “cause”. I was immediately disappointed to see how it is used to promote political views. Most of the postings I have read, do NOT represent how I feel about issues, but even if it did, this is not the place for those views. I almost didn’t join ANA after they announced who “we” nurses supported during the election. I don’t believe “we” as an organization should be “endorsing” any political candidate. We are supposed to be neutral as our focus is to be on working with any political group to improve conditions for our patients and fellow nurses. Different groups may go about achieving that in a variety of ways. I may not agree with how one side goes about solving problem A, and they may not agree with how another side tries to solve problem A. But what is important is that we respect the fact that we are both trying to solve problem A!!!! “We” need to respect our fellow nurses’ political beliefs in the same way we respect those of our patients. I was expecting to use the time (which is a precious commodity in my life) when visiting ANA’s website to learn how ANA was promoting nurse’s views as it pertains to our work conditions and the ability to care for our patients. After reading input from my fellow nurses, I expected to walk away empowered to grow professionally and learn how I can make a difference. The purpose of ANA is for nurses to stand strong together. We can’t do that if we are divided by the promotion of opinions that are not only known to be emotionally charged, but statistically cannot be shared by all.