President Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court is a victory for Americans who are fed up with corrupt judicial activism. The judicial branch needs as much draining as the rest of the federal government swamp. President Trump avoided the temptation to nominate yet another politician to the Supreme Court. It is good we have a nominee who has a demonstrated record of applying the rule of law rather than legislating from the bench. The U.S. Senate should swiftly confirm him.
In Michele Gorman’s January 27 profile piece on Neil Gorsuch for Newsweekmagazine, Fitton provided the following:
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, tells Newsweek that Gorsuch fits the Scalia mold, which Trump has promised to adhere to in his replacement nominee. “I think conservatives would consider him to be an exciting pick. I think it’s fair to say he’s a leader in terms of conservative jurisprudence and I think he quickly would become a strong voice on the court for his constitutional approach to decision making,” he says.Read the rest of this entry »
Carlson: He (Gorsuch) wrote in a book about ethics, “All human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.” Do you believe that?
Swalwell: All human beings are intrinsically valuable. However, Roe v. Wade says that a woman has a right to make a decision about her own healthcare.
Carlson: I’m not asking you about Roe v Wade. I’m asking you to assess what he said here…as a general statement. ”All human beings are intrinsically valuable,” you agree with that. The second part is, “The taking of human life by private persons is always wrong,” do you agree with that or not?
Swalwell: The most personal decision a person can make is a woman with her a doctor about her own body and a person who is terminally ill about whether they want to die in peace and he [Gorsuch] has chosen that the government should intervene.
Carlson: Will you answer my question? “The intentional taking of of human life by private persons is always wrong.” Now if you can’t agree on that…
Swalwell: The Constitution says…”
Carlson: I’m not talking about the Constitution. What do you think…I’m not talking about women’s rights. “The intentional taking of human life by private persons.” That’s what he said, and I want to know whether you agree with that statement or not.
Swalwell: What he has shown in his legal career…
Carlson: (Laughs) Are you really afraid to say that the intentional taking of life is wrong?
Swalwell: No, of course not. I was a prosecutor and I prosecuted people for intentionally taking life.
Carlson: But you won’t agree with this because you are afraid of the abortion lobby, like “Woo, you are anti-abortion if you are against the taking of human life.” I mean, come on!
Swalwell: A woman has the right to make her own decision about her own healthcare.
Carlson: Do you think it is the taking of human life? Abortion?
Swalwell: I think that right now…before viability, a woman should be able to make her own decision. After viability, in the case of her own psychological health, in the case of rape or incest, she should also be able to make that decision.
Carlson: Okay, but is it the taking of human life?