Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch was pretty coy during confirmation hearings when asked about same sex marriage and abortion. Senator Charles Grassely, (R-IA) asked if Roe was decided correctly? Gorsuch responded: “It is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992, and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

He gave a similar response when Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) asked about same sex marriage, “Senator, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that single-sex marriage is protected by the Constitution.” What does this tell us?

Gorsuch responded by stating a fact. Both these issues are settled law of the Supreme Court. But he didn’t say if given the chance, he would vote to overturn them and send them back to the states. You see, neither of these issues is enumerated specifically by the U.S. Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment 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.” Many states, even California, overwhelmingly rejected legalizing homosexual marriage in referendums. The Supreme Court, led by leftist justices, overruled the states, even though there is nothing about marriage in the Constitution.

Many could correctly argue that the very keystone of our nation’s formation protects the unborn. The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness —  that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

This is the social contract with all Americans. The Supreme Court in 1973 used the right to privacy to legalize killing babies in the womb. Again, another liberal court twisted the meaning of words and context away from their original intent to establish new law.

President Donald Trump said he would appoint Supreme Court Justices who were pro-life and, if possible, they would cause the court to reconsider Roe and allow the states to decide. He made similar comments about same-sex marriage. By limiting his answers to facts, Gorsuch signaled that he may be open to this possibility. As Christians, we do not have to participate in abortion or same-sex marriage even though it is the law. Likewise, we should not be forced to support it through our tax money.

The Lord says in Deuteronomy 30:19, “…I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live.”

And he says in Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination.”

Gorsuch’s answers left room for hope of a return to God’s settled law.

Have a Blessed and powerful day!
Bill Wilson
www.dailyjot.com

A Harvard classmate of the ex- “president” and nominated to the court by the ex- “president,” Hawaii U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson was the one who ruled against President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban on terrorist sponsoring nations. The ex- “president” reportedly made an unexpected trip to Honolulu two days before Watson ruled, causing widespread speculation of a backroom deal.

Watson’s ruling postulates that Hawaiian universities and tourism overrules security concerns. Pearl Harbor victims might have something to say about that. Watson also infers that Muslim clerics have the Constitutional right to bring anyone they want into the U.S., whether they have visas or not. But there is more.

Central to Watson’s ruling was consideration to the plaintiff, who claimed, discrimination to his family in violation of both the Constitution and the INA, denying them their right among other things “to associate with family members overseas on the basis of their religion and national origin.”

The plaintiff is Dr. Ismail Elshikh, a local Hawaiian Imam whose mother is a Syrian national “without a visa, who last visited the family in Hawaii in 2005.” She would be barred from entering the US unless granted a waiver. Further, Watson said the state of Hawaii’s universities would “suffer monetary damages and intangible harms” and the state would lose revenue “due to a decline in tourism” because of the executive order.

Watson admitted that Trump’s executive order contains no express reference to any religion, nor does it “contain any term or phrase that can be reasonably characterized as having a religious origin or connotation.” But Watson says, “The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.”

The judge also cited instances when candidate Trump said he would ban Muslims until they were fully vetted. So the judge included in his decision to issue a restraining order on the ban because Trump, before he was elected, referred to the action as a Muslim ban.

Watson contends by his statements that non-U.S. citizens living abroad have U.S. Constitutional rights. Overall, he ignored the law. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 specifically states in Section 212:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

The Lord said in Luke 16:10, “…he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.”

Judge Watson has undermined the law and the Constitution. He should be removed from his position.

Bill Wilson
www.dailyjot.com