Steve Jalsevac, co-founder and managing director of LifeSite News, recently authored and published a column; Neil Gorsuch is NOT another Scalia [emphasis in the original].
“Despite effusive praise from numerous pro-life and pro-family leaders, this man is NOT, as Trump has repeatedly been told, another Scalia … But can we trust that he will courageously rule as the nation desperately needs him to rule on all of the most crucial issues?”
By “crucial issues,” Jalsevac is referring to those concerning abortion and homosexuality, and the answer to his rhetorical question is rather obvious:
No, Neil Gorsuch cannot be trusted to rule well on these issues.
In this, Steve Jalsevac and I are in agreement.
As for why Gorusch cannot be so trusted; this is where we seem to part ways.
You see, as the title to his article suggests, Jalsevac believes that the problem lies in the degree to which Gorsuch “is NOT another Scalia.”
The implication is that the latter actually did “courageously rule as the nation desperately needed him to rule on all of the most crucial issues.”
If you listen closely, you can almost hear the plea:
Saint Antonin, Saint Antonin, come around. America’s Constitutional principles have been lost, and they must be found!
Seriously now, while I know that this will once again invite the ire of those Catholics who stopped just short of shouting Santo Subito at news of Scalia’s death, it must be said:
As a Supreme Court jurist, Antonin Scalia exhibited very little in the way of courage; in particular, Christian courage, and what’s more, there is every reason to believe that Neil Gorsuch will rule in precisely the same manner.
As Jalsevac points out in his article, when asked by Senator Dick Durbin during a confirmation hearing whether the intentional taking of unborn life is wrong, Gorsuch replied:
“The Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person, for purposes of the 14th Amendment. That [decision] is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land.”
Elsewhere in his article, Jalsevac suggests that there may be reason to suspect that “Gorsuch is not a full constitutional originalist;” presumably, like Antonin Scalia, who just so happened to say of the 14th Amendment:
“They [anti-abortion people] say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that’s wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons.” (60 Minutes interview, 24 April 2008)
Get that? A fetus is not a person, nor does the unborn child deserve to be treated as a human being.
On this, Gorsuch and Scalia are in perfect agreement.
Moving on, Jalsevac raised “serious questions about Gorsuch and homosexuality.”
Specifically, he linked to an earlier LifeSite News article detailing an exchange between Gorsuch and funny-man-turned-legislator Al Franken wherein the judge insisted that his “personal views” on homosexuality are not relevant to his jurisprudence, saying:
“Senator, my personal views – if I were to begin speaking about my personal views on this subject [marriage equality], which every American has views on, would send a misleading signal to the American people that my personal … “
In this, Gorsuch is once again demonstrating his likeness to Scalia, who when asked by Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes about “the connection between [his] Catholicism” and his judicial philosophy, replied:
“It has nothing to do with how I decide cases.”
Returning to Gorsuch’s testimony, Sen. Franken interrupted the judicial nominee; saying of so-called marriage equality, “It’s settled law?”
“It is absolutely settled law,” responded Gorsuch.
In this, Jalsevac sees a red flag, saying:
“He did not just call it ‘settled law,’ which one could say, well, yes, in legal terms that is what it could be said to be … for now. But he unnecessarily and disturbingly added the word ‘absolutely.’ Why did he go to that length? No originalist would ever make such a comment…”
Again, the point being made is quite clear:
Gorsuch cannot be trusted with respect to the matter of so-called “marriage equality,” whereas Scalia could.
Highlighting the supposed contrast between the two men, Jalsevac pointed out:
“Scalia even went so far as to argue that legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’ was a ‘threat to American democracy.’”
That’s not entirely accurate.
Scalia did not label “same-sex marriage” as a threat, but rather the Court’s decision in Obergefell. The difference is considerable.
That said, one should also note very well that he did not call it a threat to the common good of society (much less an affront to Almighty God); rather, he called it a threat to the Americanist Golden Calf, “democracy.”
Indeed, the reason Antonin Scalia dissented in Obergefell wasn’t because he took issue with a law that recognizes gay sex pacts as “marriages” in contravention of God’s Law; rather, he had a problem with the Court undermining the Almighty Democratic Process.
About Obergefell, Scalia wrote:
“It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree … robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”
He may just as well cited the Revolution of 1789 while he was at it!
In truth, Justice Scalia was perfectly content, judicially speaking, with the idea that the will of the people, as expressed via the ballot box, trumps (no pun intended) the Divine Law; both as it concerns same-sex “marriage” and abortion.
At a forum hosted by the University of California in 2011, Scalia said:
“You want a right to abortion? … Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law; you got the right to abortion.”
If that’s not enough to convince “pro-lifers” that the last thing the world needs is “another Scalia,” consider an article on the late Justice that was published in the Remnant in 2014:
“When he [Scalia] dons his robe as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, the basis of his decisions must be what the Constitution requires, and if abortion or the death penalty is permitted by the state under its law, then despite his Catholic belief it is the vox populi who are sovereign in these matters.”
Shockingly, the Remnant reports this blatant rejection of the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King with neither protest nor correction; in fact, on the contrary, Scalia was duly praised in the article as a “devout Catholic” and even hailed as “a man of impeccable judgment.”
Clearly, the Americanist disease has spread well beyond the confines of the neo-Catholic conciliarists and the National Catholic Reporters of the world.
Please, don’t get me wrong: I’m grateful for the good work that LifeSite News, Steve Jalsevac, and others have done in an attempt to construct a “culture of life” and to promote authentic Catholic tradition.
Even so, we can be certain that unless such efforts include a willingness to insist very specifically upon the Kingship of Christ, and likewise the duty incumbent upon all who govern, Catholic or otherwise, “to give public honor and obedience to Him” (cf Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas 32), they will ultimately be fruitless.
“For without me, you can do nothing.” (cf John 15:5)
It is my hope that by challenging popular sentiments and speaking plainly on the matter at hand, the current events under discussion here will serve as a “teachable moment” for those who as yet do not fully appreciate just how much is at stake; not just for the United States, but for every nation on earth.
Ezra 7:25 “And you, Ezra, according to the God-given wisdom you possess, appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province Beyond the River who know the laws of your God; and you shall teach those who do not know them.”
Many Catholics treat the constitution as if it were part of the deposit of the faith. They put the Founding Fathers above the Fathers of the Church. Mr. Gorsuch will be just another modern day Catholic, very Kennedy like, I’m sure. If you want to serve on the Supreme Court, you had better bow down to the gods of the Constitution and check your Catholic faith at the door
Gorsuch ain’t no Catholic. He’s a sodomy-enshrining Episcopalian.
Bravo once again for challenging he cult of Scalia. Legions of cuckservatives have unthinkingly accepted the cuckservative propaganda that Scalia was a conservative. Yet no true conservative would in any way support the ongoing holocaust of legalized fetal infanticide.
These guys are doing a job – that is, the ones that follow the rules. That’s what they were hired to do. In this case, the rules is the Constitution. If the rules are crap then it is the responsibility of We The People to change the rules. Its a catholic (small c) thing.
Life Shite News once again prove that they are cucks and not true Traditional Catholics.
Like all modernists, they suffer from a grievous and mortal spiritual sickness. They think it is acceptable to desecrate the liturgy as long as it is “for the Cause”.
They may save a few lives with their antics, but they will cause the ruin of souls.
“And you remember in particular what happened to the Count of Chambord. He was criticized for not accepting to be made king of France after the 1870 Revolution in France on the grounds of changing the French flag. But it was not so much a question of the flag. Rather, he refused to submit to the principles of the Revolution. He said, “I shall never consent to being the lawful King of the Revolution.” He was right! For he would have been voted in by the country, voted in by the French Parliament, but on condition he accept to be a Parliamentary King, and so accept the principles of the Revolution. He said “No. If I am to be King, I shall be King like my ancestors were, before the Revolution.” He was right. One has to choose. He chose to stay with the Pope, and with pre-Revolutionary principles.
We too have chosen to be Counter-revolutionary, to stay with the Syllabus, to be against the modern errors, to stay with Catholic Truth, to defend Catholic truth. We are right!”
For those of you to whom this article served as an eye-opener or a red pill,
please study the following carefully:
Another good Scalia article. Yes, Gorsuch started presenting red flags as soon as we first started hearing his name being tossed into the ring. Im not sure if Trump lied, Trump was duped, or Gorsuch is just playing an awesome game of ‘posum….but his likely confirmation (after he gets nuked in) is nothing to be thrilled about. I totally agree with Louie….Im not confident.
Also, considering this is Trump’s first pick (where he is trying to make a “conservative” bang) then you would assume that if he gets another pick or two they will be even LESS inclined to take down row v wade then Gorsuch (presumably) is.
You CANNOT be an effective Catholic (or heck, even “christian” apparently) and an effective SC justice…..I just dont see it.
Yup. I read this early on.
Now if this is actually true (and I obviously cant verify it all) then we already pretty much know what the deal is going forward.
Rich is right. If Trump can make us swallow Gorsuch, he will probably come up with his versions of the evil lesbians Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor for his next two picks, and many will fall for it hook, line and sinker.
Assuming anyone might ever be confirmed as a judge were he/she to declare that all of his/her opinions would be consonant with their Catholic beliefs (and even then Catholics might disagree on that judge’s take on Catholic doctrine), do you seriously believe that any Catholic would be appointed to the judiciary? Perhaps such a judge would ‘recuse’ himself/herself from deciding on appeals that were underpinned by or touched on Catholic ethic? Would you require that such a judge cite a scriptural basis for his/her opinion?
These objections to Judge Scalia (and I’m only replying in respect to the tar-and-brush being applied to him here) are unfair, facile, and naive. There would be no (genuinely) Catholic judges ever sitting in the courts. I could go further, but I shant now.
The good Catholic judge will be wise as a serpent and prudent as a dove. And, I suggest, that such public prudence may slow the barbarian at the gates long enough to allow the Catholic citizenry to raise an army…if it has the will to do so.
De mortuis nihil nisi bonum
Should I be wearing a tin foil hat ???? https://www.infowars.com/scalias-death-linked-to-bohemian-grove-illuminati/#disqus_thread
Did you get to read this intellectual giant – he doesn’t know what the Creator of All thing said about “Creation” – increase and multiply…et al..
Speaking in broken English, Sorondo said:
Many times, we don’t know exactly what is the doctrine of the Church – we know some part but not all the doctrine of the Church about the question of the fecundity … And the many, many priests say to me that the great solution for the question of procreation is the education of the womans. Because when you have education, we don’t have childrens. We don’t have seven children. Maybe we have one children, two children. No more. And this is also an obligation for the Church and after and in then I want to say that also in the catechismos of the Church say, ‘the state has a responsibility for its citizens’ well-being. In this capacity, it is legitimate for the state to intervene to orient the demography of the population.’ This is also an idea of the Catholic Church
Catechismos? is that Catastro…catastrophy of the church.. Lets all go on welfare…
WOW – where do they get these prelates….
We MUST ask. Where does marriage get it”s ‘such high value’ that it demands laws and society to protect it and to protect those most vulnerable entering into it? Another way of putting it is, where does the sex act get it’s power to demand that there be laws to protect those who enter into the conjugal act? Is it that the sex act has the power to simply please man sensually. Is it that the sex act has the ability to simply unite people? Is it that the sex act should be viewed as a commodity that man is free to use for ones own reasons? What Scalia and others failed to understand or embrace is that the sex act demands laws regulating it BECAUSE OF ITS POTENTIALITY TO BRING SOULS, WHICH IS OF THE HIGHEST VALUE, into the world even for those who fail to contemplate this truth.
Let us be honest, those confused sodomites who wish to have their relations acknowledged as marriage are not coming forward as ‘just friends’ who love each other and who are not having perverted sexual relations but are coming forward because of the sexual activity they are giving another human being in exchange for favors of varying sorts that are seen as of value to them. The sodomites know intrinsically that sex has value but they REFUSE to acknowledge, because of their sickened minds, that sex only has value when it is ordered toward and respects God’s laws on marriage and procreation of souls and purity for God’s glory. Sodomites by nature do not, and will never have the potentiality to bring souls into the world for God’s glory from their sexual activity. Their sexual activity may unite them on a sick emotional level but simply as an exchange of sexual favors for sick emotional and financial reasons.Thus they have absolutely no right to the laws that govern marriage. which gets it power from its potentiality to bring a soul into the world.Their acts are an abomination let alone acts that are entitled to laws that protect them.
Scalia falsely reasoned that he could not defend marriage on the primary purpose of the sex act being the procreation of souls because he believed there were many infertile couples who could not procreate and who are entitled to the laws that govern marriage. What Scalia did not understand was that of course infertile couples have the right to laws governing marriage BECAUSE through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN do they wish that their conjugal relations not be based on procreation of souls but only through a defect of nature or time are they infertile. The biological interior and exterior of their bodies dictate that their bodies were ordained for procreation of souls during the conjugal act.
Do you see now where Scalia’s lack of truly understanding where and why the conjugal act demands laws that are exclusive to a male and female couple? He, like many others are not clear on what the primary purpose of marriage is and what the Church fathers, the true magisterium and saints and many Catholic had easily understood before the craze of divorce, fraudulent annulments, NFP and chemical birth control and vasectomies and tubal ligations and abortion have had. I believe he has, like 99% of so called Catholics, inverted the hierarchy and subordination of purposes of the conjugal act between the sex act and its effects of unity as being primary VS the sex act and its effects or POTENTIALITY OF BRINGING SOULS into the world as BEING PRIMARY.
I know I sound like a broken record but I will go to my grave trying to drum this in. Scalia was a prime example, and he most certainly is not alone in this thinking, of one who had a weak and improper understanding of the hierarchy of purposes of marriage and therefor was too weak to even stand up against, in any intelligent way, laws supporting sodomite unions as marriage and even divorce for that matter.
Of course Louie is right when he drums in the KINGSHIP of Christ the King Sovereign Lord. In the end, even if one were to try to explain that the laws protecting marriage only apply to those whose conjugal acts that have by nature the potentiality to bring a soul into the world, we would still be required to defend the laws of God that say this conjugal act also requires fidelity to ones spouse and indissolubility BECAUSE OF the grand mission of bringing souls into this world and the sacrifices demanded when entering into this conjugal act. This can be not proclaimed without referencing God and everything else He explained about marriage and its nature and how marriage is to reflect Christ and His ONE BRIDE the Church, and in Heaven their will be no need for marriage or the conjugal act because there will be no more need for new souls in Heaven and so on .
At times I have questioned whether I am wasting my time on this but somehow I have come to miraculously conclude that I believe I am not wasting my time on this because I actually somehow believe there just may be some hope for those who are truly confused in their thinking from the many generations of contraceptors and divorcees that they have been born from and into. Our banner needs to be grounded in Christ the King Sovereign Priest and His teachings if we wish to do what is right and to be courageous soldiers and teachers of Christ”s Words in this sad world of ours.
If we try to find a complement for the message of La Salette in the silent symbolism of Knock, we see that the crisis in the Church prophesized in La Salette are confirmed by the presence of St. John, who appeared as a Bishop with a book – probably the Apocalypse – in his hand. This is tantamount to him saying: “The crisis that Our Lady predicted in La Salette, which will make Rome become the seat of the Antichrist and will represent the eclipse of the Church, I also prophesized in the Apocalypse.”
So, we should understand the crisis as something permitted by God for His final victory and greater glory. For the glory of the Lamb of God, which also appears luminous over the altar in Knock as well as in the Apocalypse. It is something that invites us not to despair, but to trust Our Lady and Our Lord.
Also the presence of St. Joseph, Protector of the Church, in the Knock apparition sends the message: “No matter how grave the crisis may be, I will continue to protect the Church and lead her to a safe port as I did with the Holy Family. You, the faithful, must have recourse to me and my Most Holy Spouse, the Virgin Mary, in this crisis.” Again, the message is to increase our confidence in the supernatural.
Iudicame: The evolution of what is the demand of conscience in modern thought is an interesting study. In the days of the founders, it was common practice to appeal to God, His justice and mercy, as well as the demands of faith in defining right action. Today, such expressions of fealty to Our Lord are treated as criminal by govt and also many Christians, such as yourself.
Thank you, dear Anastasia. You are saying what the pope, bishops, priests, religious, teachers and parents ought to be saying. The truth is so elusive in this evil age.
Pope Pius XI “Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio” December 23, 1922:
27. “…In the Holy Scriptures we read: ‘They that have forsaken the Lord, shall be consumed.’ (Isaias i, 28) No less well known are the words of the Divine Teacher, Jesus Christ, Who said: ‘Without me you can do nothing’ (John xv, 5) and again, ‘He that gathereth not with me, scattereth’ (Luke xi, 23.)
28. These words of the Holy Bible have been fulfilled and are now at this very moment being fulfilled before our very eyes. Because men have forsaken God and Jesus Christ, they have sunk to the depths of evil. They waste their energies and consume their time and efforts in vain sterile attempts to find a remedy for these ills, but without even being successful in saving what little remains from the existing ruin. It was a quite general desire that both our laws and our governments should exist without recognizing God or Jesus Christ, on the theory that all authority comes from men, not from God. Because of such an assumption, these theorists fell very short of being able to bestow upon law not only those sanctions which it must possess but also that secure basis for the supreme criterion of justice which even a pagan philosopher like Cicero saw clearly could not be derived except from the divine law.”
Everyone loses when Christ the King reigneth not over men and their nations.
Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Those who disagree do so at the peril to the nation they say they love but for which they have a false sense of nationalistic pride that impedes her conversion to the true Faith, which is what Our Lord Himself mandates for each nation on the face of the earth.
Remember, it is not God nor Christ the King who are the Supreme Authority in our country but the Constitution of the United States of America. But even that has been corrupted by the obvious disregard for even the rule of law replaced solely by public opinion, persuaded by demons and the forces of evil in service to the Devil.
It is the Devil who is the supreme authority of the land, the one who has authored the “laws of the land.”
Thank you Lynda.
Katherine, this was a very interesting quote to read from PiusXI. Very pertinent.
Rush, given all the Marian apparitions with a message of a great apostasy and Rome losing the faith, why do you not at least consider the sedevacantist opinion? It seems to me that all this turmoil was predicted.
Anastasia, in this time of great apostasy from the true faith, it is edifying to the soul to read what our Holy popes taught.
Blatant evil – consonant with Francis’s diabolic ideology – promoting institutionalised mortal sin and the resultant destruction of marriage and souls, and atop that, endorsing evil tyrannical state attack on marriage, and all marriages and families. What evil!! Yes, we Catholics are being persecuted by our secular enemies through state and interstate agencies with the active collusion of evil Catholic prelates (most likely apostate).
At this late date, whatever utility the Constitution once had is long gone. For pro-lifers, the best that can be expected is for the country to break apart into 50 independent states. Which is likely to happen. The SU broke up in 1991, the EU in 2016 and the US in…? Pro-lifers than can fight in each new country to protect the unborn.