Neil Gorsuch is not qualified

It is hard to maintain a sane conversation with people who say they believe Neil McGill Gorsuch is qualified to be a SC Judge. Anyone who looks at this mans background knows he has let his personal, religious convictions interfere with his rulings, such as in the case of Hobby Lobby vs. Sibelius, In this case, Gorsuch noted that the ACA's contraceptive mandate on private businesses violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. So, how does that make any sense if Gorsuch hasn't let his Roman Catholic background cloud his judgment?

Religious beliefs have no place in the world of business, so this Religious Freedom Restoration Act acted as nothing more than simply a legal crutch so Hobby Lobby could skip having to follow sensible mandates. This is not "Freedom of Religion" when you allow religion to interfere with the world of business. Those worlds do not go together, nor were ever meant to go together. You want religious freedom? Go out to your car, and read your bible then, but don't use God as a crutch to get out of serving business.

Back to this Colorado lemon, and this flaw is inherent in Gorsuch, in that he is a originalist. Okay, to the Ted Cruz's, and the people who have a Constitution copy framed on their bedroom wall, this is a win, but the rest of sensible America knows this 200-plus old document is in need of rewrites in order to properly co-exist with America in the 21st Century. What our founders wanted was in a completely different time period, and now we're out of that time period. And that includes giving the SC the power it used in 2015

Aside from allowing his religious convictions to cloud his judgment in cases, Gorsuch is a proponent of state rights, which anyone knows to have a properly functioning country, you can't simply leave it to the states to decide. Having federal regulations ties every state in the union together, forcing each to comply with each other

Neil Gorsuch is a win for conservatives, a loss to America. His religious bias is reason why America needs to transform into a agnostic country.

 

I know you and I have had this conversation before, but again, most Americans wanted a more conservative justice, that's a major reason Trump won. Also, Your belief that the constitution needs to be "updated" and that the founding fathers had not foreseen or not prepared for cultural and technological changes is simply not true, the values upheld in the constitution are still applicable today. Another thing, States right's is a good thing, the government should not "force" states to comply with it.

 

With all due respect, I will point out that while the Founding Fathers hadn't foreseen the cultural and technological transformations in this country, the world was also supposed to end in 2012. Adapting to change is what allows individuals, from bacteria to nations, to exist. People think I'm talking about taking the Constitution, crumbling it, using it as basketball practice, and taking out a blank sheet of paper. That's not what I mean. What I mean is that "We The People" has a completely different meaning in nearing 2020, than it is when it was nearing 1800. Tweak, and adjust when necessary. The Constitution was not designed to stand the test of time.

 

Can you give me some examples of things that need to be changed/scrapped?

 

You presume Gorsuch's "religious beliefs" impacted his decisions, while at the same time provide the LEGAL reasoning he used ("Gorsuch noted that the ACA's contraceptive mandate on private businesses violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.") to justify his decision.
So in reality, there was only one decision that would have convinced you that he did not fall back on his religious beliefs in these decisions. But because he didn't rule AGAINST the upholding of personal religious beliefs by others, Gorsuch had to be influenced by his religious beliefs.
That is a). quite the subjective standard, and b). a 9.8 score in Mental Gymnastics!

 

Religious freedom and rights mean the same thing now as in 1800. The government restrictions do not change simply because society changes.

 

So, under the First Amendment, you have "Freedom of Religion," which has caused problems in recent times like the case of Hobby Lobby, or Kim Davis. As part of the Free Exercise Clause, it guarantees a persons right to hold whatever religious beliefs he or she wants, and to freely exercise that belief. In this case, the Free Exercise Clause should be amended to include that "While religious beliefs are guaranteed to any one individual, they shall not infringe in a place of business, or abused by public servants."

 

While I strongly disagree with Gorsuch on a number of issues he is imminently qualified to serve on the SCOTUS.

 

Disagree. That's the first step in eliminating the right to religious freedom. That was the entire purpose of the amendment.

 

What if it is a private business? Do they not have the freedom to practice their religion in their own business?

 

Your wrong, the Constitution was designed to stand the test of time, Article Five. .
Article Five of the United States Constitution detailed the two-step process for amending the nation's frame of government. Amendments must be properly Proposed and Ratified before becoming operative. This process was designed to strike a balance between the excesses of constant change and inflexibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

Then by your ?Logic? self-proclaimed Christians Hillary and Obama should not have been qualified to be Presidents.

 

The American Bar Association disagrees with you:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-american-bar-association-rating-235924

 

Obama picked 2 LIB judges on purpose and now the Republicans can choose who they want. What is your problem? Hopefully Ginsburg, who looks like she's at death's door, will retire soon and he can pick another. You act as though you're shocked. This is why Conservatives voted for Trump. They didn't want ANOTHER Lib judge. He will replace many on the Court of Appeals too.

 

You could also argue that even Democrats in the Senate, who voted Gorsuch to the Federal bench with 100% support, also disagree!

 

Because any rational person could come to the same conclusion without being a Roman Catholic. I'm not a Roman Catholic, and I agree with his written opinion in that case, that religious freedom: "doesn’t just apply to protect popular religious beliefs: it does perhaps its most important work in protecting unpopular religious beliefs, vindicating this nation’s long-held aspiration to serve as a refuge of religious tolerance". And you don't have to be Roman Catholic to believe that.

You're trying to assert your own personal belief - that "religious beliefs have no place in the world of business" - over the text of the Constitution and federal law. Neither the Constitution nor federal law say what you do. Judicial opinions are based on the law, not on Balto's personal beliefs.

Sure, things have changed over time. It's worth noting that so has the Constitution. Sure, you think the Constitution needs updating, that it was written in a completely different time - I would suggest that you read article V of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Again, it sounds like you are asserting your own personal opinion over the Constitution and the law of the land. Judges aren't supposed to have great personal policy opinions, they're supposed to interpret and apply the law to legal disputes. The Constitution only permits the federal government to do certain set things - these powers given to the federal government by the Constitution are called the enumerated powers. They are in Article I, Section 8, and I have provided below a link to them. I would also draw your attention to the 10th amendment, which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

You have yet to show religious bias on the part of Gorsuch.

 

There really isn't a good argument to be made that Gorsuch is unqualified - or at least, not one that I've heard yet (and I assume that if there was a good one, it would have been made in the hearings). The only exception I can think of when I stretch my mind is when people say roughly, "I don't agree with him, therefore he is unqualified", where people make agreeing with them integral to being qualified.

 

YOU LOST THE ELECTION.

 

most Americans wanted a more conservative justice
I'd be interested in seeing documentation to support that claim

 

I don't exactly disagree with you but I'd be curious to know where the bar lies.

What exactly WOULD disqualify someone here?

 

YOU LOST THE ELECTION. NEIL GORSUCH WILL BE CONFIRMED.

GINSBURG WILL BE REPLACED BY A CONSERVATIVE TOO.

HAVE BETTER POLICIES NEXT TIME.

 

Screaming doesn't make your claims any more real.So you admit that blocking Merick Garland was strictly political?

 

The OP needs to tell us his qualifications in law, and especially Fed law to make a statement like the title of the thread, maybe starting with his law degree.

 

What? No. The senate picks the supreme Court justices. The president can give his suggestion, but they don't have to listen to him. Obama offered a shitty pick. He should have put forth a nominee that right wingers would like.

 

We get it. He does not agree with you- therefore he is not qualified, even though he was confirmed for appellate posts and widely praised by democrats before. He was fit them- but now, since Trump nominated him, he is unfit. Typically left-brain logic.