Pros And Cons Of Neil Gorsuch

812 Words4 Pages

In spite of a scorched-earth campaign by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Neil Gorsuch has been confirmed to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s untimely death last year. Gorsuch’s nomination was one of the most significant actions of the Trump presidency so far, and his confirmation will now have profound implications for our nation over the next several decades. Here are four reasons why American citizens—especially Evangelical conservatives—should consider Gorsuch’s confirmation a great victory and why he might be better even than Scalia, whose place on the bench he would take. 1. He as a proven record defending religious liberty. The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution declares, “Congress shall …show more content…

Justice Gorsuch—like Justice Scalia before him—rejects the “living document” view. He would refrain from the type of judicial activism that bypasses the will of the people. 3. He may be willing to reject unconstitutional precedents. The most contentious debate, however, concerns the legal principle of stare decisis. A Latin phrase, stare decisis means that judges should respect legal precedents by letting them stand instead of overturning them. It is important to note, however, that stare decisis is not found in the Constitution or the Bill or Rights; it is not the law of the land, but a “rule of thumb.” As Constitutional lawyer Robert McFarland points out, a number of Democratic congressmen have taken a sudden interest in this legal principle. But for what reason? There is no evidence that these Congressmen have an affection for the legal principle, in and of