#What is Neil Gorsuch’s religion? It’s complicated | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

viralhottopics · 8 years ago

Text

What is Neil Gorsuch’s religion? It’s complicated

WASHINGTON (CNN)Earlier this month, the Trump administration summoned two dozen religious leaders to a private meeting. The mission: to rally support for Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

According to several participants, White House staffers emphasized Gorsuch’s robust defense of religious rights as a judge on the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals. In one prominent decision, Gorsuch argued that the government should rarely, if ever, coerce the consciences of believers.

Eventually, the conversation turned to Gorsuch’s own religious background.

He was raised Catholic but now worships with his wife and two daughters at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado. Like the city, the congregation is politically liberal. It bars guns from its campus and installed solar panels; it condemns harsh rhetoric about Muslims and welcomes gays and lesbians. And its rector, the Rev. Susan Springer, attended the Women’s March in Denver, though not as a form of protest but as a sign of support for “the dignity of every human being.”

Springer says St. John’s is carrying out the covenant Episcopalians recite during baptisms: to strive for justice and peace among all people. Her congregation, she added, includes liberals, conservatives and all political points in between.

“What binds us together as one body is a curiosity and longing to encounter and know God,” she wrote in an email to CNN, “a willingness to explore our own interior selves, and a desire to leave the world in some small way better for our having been in it.”

As Gorsuch’s Senate confirmation hearings approach this week, some hardline conservatives have raised concerns about his choice of church.

“Be advised,” blared a tweet from Bryan Fischer, a host on the American Family Radio Network. “Gorsuch attends a church that is rabidly pro-gay, pro-Muslim, pro-green, and anti-Trump.”

“Is Gorsuch a secret liberal?” asked an op-ed in The Hill, a Washington newspaper.

Another columnist argued that if conservatives complained about Barack Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, shouldn’t they also grumble about Gorsuch’s?

At the meeting in Washington, held in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next door to the White House, administration officials encouraged the religious leaders to push back against such questions. St. John’s is one of only two Episcopal churches in Boulder, and the other caters to students at the University of Colorado, they said, according to people who attended the meeting. Anyway, Gorsuch should be judged on his judicial opinions, not his pastor’s politics, they argued.

Many Catholics and evangelicals agree, pointing to Gorsuch’s sterling conservative credentials. He is a lifelong Republican and a member of the Federalist Society, a leading conservative legal organization. He has written a scholarly book arguing against assisted suicide and openly admires the late Antonin Scalia, the justice he would replace, a hero to the conservative intellectual elite.

But in the black-and-white world of partisan politics, Gorsuch’s writings and religious life show several strands of gray.

He studied with an eminent Catholic philosopher but attends a progressive Episcopal parish. He has defended the religious rights not only of Christian corporations but also of Muslims and Native Americans. He has thought deeply about morality, but says judges have no right to impose their views on others. He is hailed as the fulfillment of President Trump’s pledge to pick a “pro-life” justice, but has no judicial record on abortion itself.

Even Gorsuch’s own religion is somewhat of a gray area.

If confirmed by the Senate, would Gorsuch be the high court’s only Protestant justice, or its sixth Catholic? His close friends and family offer different answers to that question.

A quiet faith

Gorsuch’s father was not religious, family members say, but his mother, Anne, came from a long line of Irish Catholics.

Rosie Binge, Anne’s sister and Gorsuch’s aunt and godmother, said her parents ferried their seven children to Mass every morning, and dinner was followed by a family recitation of the Rosary.

“I think religion is a big factor in Neil’s life,” Binge said. “When you grow up with someone so devout, it has to rub off on you.”

The three Gorsuch children — Neil, Stephanie and J.J. — attended Mass most Sundays and were enrolled in Catholic schools for much of their early educational lives, family members say.

In his speech accepting Trump’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Gorsuch briefly alluded to his faith, saying it had lifted him through life’s valleys. That was especially true during the early 2000s, said Gorsuch’s younger brother, J.J., when their father, David, suffered from an aneurysm and later died, closely followed by his twin sister. Their mother, Anne, died in 2004.

“It was a tough time for the family,” said J.J. Gorsuch, who worships at a Catholic church in Denver. “I know that prayer, and group prayer, helped sustain him as well as the rest of us.”

After his parents’ death, Neil Gorsuch grew close to his uncle, the Rev. John Gorsuch, an Episcopal priest, who died February 15. On a group call after Neil’s nomination was announced, family members say, the pastor joked that some of the people on the line were Democrats, but all were proud of his nephew.

When the family moved to Washington, where Anne Gorsuch led the Environmental Protection Agency in the early 1980s, Gorsuch attended Georgetown Prep, a Jesuit school in Maryland.

Michael Trent, who has known Gorsuch since they were 14, remembers his close friend as studious but affable, equally at home in the library stacks and outdoors. He kept most of his opinions, including his religious views, private.

“It’s important to him, but in the times we’ve spent together it has not been a big part of the conversation,” said Trent, who lives in Marietta, Georgia. “It’s just one those quiet things you understand about a person.”

Gorsuch is godfather to Trent’s two sons, whom he spoils with presents on birthdays and Christmas, Trent said.

After college and law school, between stints clerking at the Supreme Court, Gorsuch studied legal philosophy at Oxford University in England, where his dissertation was supervised by John Finnis, a giant in the field and a former member of the Vatican’s prestigious International Theological Commission.

Among laypeople, Finnis may be best known for his expositions on natural law, an often-misunderstood area of legal and moral philosophy.

At its heart, natural law refers to a body of norms that adherents believe are not created by humans, but instead are revealed through the application of reason, said Richard Garnett, a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame Law School, where Finnis now teaches.

Because philosophers like Finnis have employed natural law to argue against abortion and same-sex marriage, the field has become controversial, especially among liberals. In 1994, protesters interrupted an address by Finnis at Harvard, calling him a “hatemonger” and “homophobe.”

In a speech at Notre Dame in 2011, Gorsuch spoke fondly of Finnis, saying, “I have encountered few such patient, kind, and truly generous teachers in my life.”

Some conservatives celebrate Finnis’ influence on Gorsuch. But others worry that natural law will become an unwelcome distraction during Gorsuch’s Senate confirmation hearings, as it was during those of Robert Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas, both of whom expressed their appreciation for the field.

Gorsuch himself drew on natural law while writing his 2006 book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.” In it, he argued that “all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

Conservatives who have read the book say it not only offers indications of Gorsuch’s views on assisted suicide, but abortion as well.

“It is impossible to come away from this rather remarkable book with any conclusion other than that this is a man who has a very high regard for the sanctity and the dignity of human life,” said Timothy Goeglein, vice president for external relations for the evangelical ministry Focus on the Family.

“I am confident that he will be a pro-life justice,” said Marilyn Musgrave, vice president of government affairs for the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group.

Despite Trump’s pledge to pick a “pro-life” justice, Leonard Leo, who advised the president on Supreme Court nominees, said the issue was never explicitly raised during their discussions.

In Green v. Haskell County Board of Commissioners, Gorsuch dissented from a decision that forced an Oklahoma town to remove a 10 Commandments monument from the lawn of its courthouse.

In American Atheists v. Davenport, Gorsuch joined a minority opinion that argued that a “reasonable observer” would not necessarily view crosses erected on public property in honor of Utah state troopers as a government endorsement of religion.

In Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, Gorsuch argued that a Muslim inmate can claim that his religious rights were violated by an Oklahoma prison that refused to provide halal food.

In Yellowbear v. Lampert, Gorsuch argued that a Wyoming prison violated a Native American prisoner’s religious rights by refusing to grant him access to the prison’s sweat lodge.

In Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, Gorsuch wrote a lengthy defense of a Christian family business who said the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate impinged on their freedom of religion.

In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, Gorsuch joined the dissent in siding with an order of nuns who likewise refused to comply with the contraception mandate, arguing that it violated their religious consciences.

“Judge Gorsuch wasn’t asked about it, and he’s not going to make a commitment on it,” said Leo, who has taken a leave from his job heading the Federalist Society while he shepherds Gorsuch’s nomination through the Senate.

Gorsuch himself cautioned senators against reading too much into his work in moral philosophy when he was nominated to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006. “My personal views, as I hope I have made clear, have nothing to do with the case before me in any case,” he said. “The litigants deserve better than that, the law demands more than that.”

In that regard, Gorsuch said he closely follows the man he would replace on the Supreme Court. In a speech shortly after Scalia’s death last year, Gorsuch said the “great project” of the late justice’s life had been to argue for a strict separation of powers between judges and legislators.

Lawmakers may appeal to public and personal morality, Gorsuch said, but judges never should. Their job, he said, is to interpret the law, rendering decisions based on what the text says, not what they believe.

Other legal scholars say that’s unrealistic. No matter how hard judges try, their personal passions and partisan leanings always seep, even unconsciously, into their decisions.

Episcopalian or Catholic?

When Neil Gorsuch returned from his studies in Oxford, he came home a married man. His British-born wife, Louise, was raised in the Church of England. As the new family settled in Vienna, Virginia, they joined Holy Comforter, an Episcopal parish.

According to church records, the Gorsuches were members of Holy Comforter from 2001 to 2006, when they moved to Colorado. But on membership forms, Neil listed his religion as Catholic, and there is no record that he formally joined the Episcopal Church, said the Rev. Lyndon Shakespeare, Holy Comforter’s interim rector.

That’s not unusual, Shakespeare said.

The Catholic and Episcopal churches may differ on politics, but their worship services can be quite similar, and a number of Catholics worship at Episcopal parishes without formally changing their religious identity. The churches recognize each other’s baptisms and marriages, but the Catholic Church does not regard celebrations of Holy Communion at Episcopal services as valid, experts say.

When the Gorsuch family moved to Colorado, they joined St. John’s, where they have been active in Sunday services. Louise is a lay reader, the couple’s two daughters likewise assist in the liturgy as acolytes and Neil has been an usher.

Friends and family say Louise Gorsuch has an affinity for the liturgy and music at St. John’s, finding in it an echo of her upbringing in the Church of England.

“Many of the hymn texts and musical settings are centuries old, some dating to the earliest centuries of Christianity,” said Springer, the church rector. “For people who have been life-long Anglicans, this music ties back to childhood.”

Springer declined to speak in detail about the Gorsuches, but in a recent church newsletter she praised Neil as “a broad-thinking” and thoughtful man.

In a statement, the congregation of St. John’s echoed that sentiment:

“We know Neil as a man of great humility and integrity, one eager to listen and thoughtful in speaking. These qualities are ones we pray all public servants in any leadership role in our country might possess. We care deeply for Louise and the girls and know them as people of solid faith. We give thanks to God for the presence of this family in our midst.”

Springer said she doesn’t know whether Gorsuch considers himself a Catholic or an Episcopalian.

“I have no evidence that Judge Gorsuch considers himself an Episcopalian, and likewise no evidence that he does not.”

Gorsuch’s younger brother, J.J., said he too has “no idea how he would fill out a form. He was raised in the Catholic Church and confirmed in the Catholic Church as an adolescent, but he has been attending Episcopal services for the past 15 or so years.”

Trent, Gorsuch’s close friend, said he believes Gorsuch would consider himself “a Catholic who happens to worship at an Episcopal church.”

Rosie Binge said her family was surprised to see media reports calling her nephew an Episcopalian. “I think once you’re a Catholic, you’re always a Catholic,” she said, before adding with a laugh, “At least he’s going to church!”

Binge is right about the Catholic Church.

Once baptized Catholic, a person enters an unbreakable theological communion, even if he or she later worships in a different church, said William Daniel, a canon law expert at Catholic University in Washington, DC.

“We would say that fundamentally such a person is still Catholic, even if they are living out their life as a Lutheran or Episcopalian. We wouldn’t confront the person, but if they asked, we would say: Yes, you’re still a part of the Catholic Church.”

Daniel emphasized that he was not speaking specifically about Gorsuch.

Gorsuch could also call himself an Episcopalian if he meets the church’s minimum standards for membership: Being baptized Christian, receiving Holy Communion at least three times a year and supporting the church through prayer and financial donations.

“The intent here is key,” said the Rev. Thomas Ferguson, an Episcopal priest and an expert on its relationships with other churches. “If he intends to be an Episcopalian he could certainly be considered one.”

This may seem academic, but the religious composition of the Supreme Court is closely watched by many believers. There has not been a Protestant on the Supreme Court since Justice David Souter, an Episcopalian, retired in 2009, and many Protestants eagerly anticipate Gorsuch’s confirmation as a religious milestone. Currently, there are five Catholics and three Jews on the high court.

“In the interest of pluralism, it’s about time we had a Protestant on the Supreme Court,” said Richard Land, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary and a member of Trump’s evangelical advisory board during the campaign. They still advise his administration.

“Would I be happier if he were going to a more traditional Episcopal Church? Yeah, I’d be happier for him,” Land continued.

“But I’m more concerned with his views on the Constitution than where he goes to church.”

Read more: http://ift.tt/2nmuNe7

from What is Neil Gorsuch’s religion? It’s complicated

#What is Neil Gorsuch’s religion? It’s complicated

0 notes

newjerseyprelawland-blog · 4 years ago

Text

New Religious Rights Case Reminds Us Of The Complicated Legal History Of Religion And Sports

By Alexander Voorhees, Rutgers University Class of 2021

January 27, 2021

In the United States there are two cultures that have become synonymous with each other as well as have clashed with each other, these cultures are athletic competition and religious adherence. Athletes like the former quarterback Tim Tebow who became known for praying during games and the Olympic fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad who became known as the first American woman to wear a hijab in the Olympics are two examples of how religion became apart of the identity for these athletes. However, in some instances display of faith and religious observation in sports has led to legal controversy. According to the Marquette Sports Law Review, while faith and sports in professional sports has been celebrated, it is often the less publicized interscholastic sports that have put religious rights in sports to the test.[1] The Free Exercise Clause which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”[2] will be an important principle that will define these following cases including one that could end up in the Supreme Court sometime this year.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District: “Football is entertainment, not education” this is what John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute said in response to the firing of a high school football coach in the state of Washington after an on-field prayer in 2015.[3] The coach, Joseph Kennedy, of Bremerton High School claims that the prayer he made on the 50-yard line was protected by the free speech clause as it was a private religious act. However, the Bremerton School District claimed that the coach was acting on behalf of the district at a large school event and therefore the 50-yard line was no different from a classroom. The school district also claimed in their appellate brief that “Kennedy and the Bremerton School District mutually understood that the schools coaches had extensive responsibilities, including being a mentor and role model, and being a more important figure in some students’ lives than anyone else at school, including teachers”.[4] Therefore, this would mean that not only was the coach practicing their own religious beliefs but they were pushing them onto their players and therefore it was a violation worthy of termination. Whoever the ninth circuit rules in favor of could establish how teachers and coaches practice their faith on the west coast. In regards to the Supreme Court a statement by Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch was made saying they would intervene if the ninth district went too far in restricting religious liberty which could lead to a significant conservative ruling on religious rights in public schools[5]. This is just one way in which religion and athletics have legally clashed.

Akiyama v. US Judo Inc: One way in which religion and athletics have come into conflict is through a participant of said sport being unable to perform a duty central to the sport itself which was perfectly exemplified in Akiyama v. US Judo Inc. In 1997 Leilani Akiyama filed a suit against the US Judo Inc for forcing fighters to bow after fights and to Japanese martial arts legends. Akiyama claimed that this violated her first amendment rights because as a Buddhist she could not worship Shinto rituals which disqualified her from judo competitions. Akiayama’s attorneys claimed that because the competitions were fought in publicly funded facilities that a display of religion such as bowing should not be required[6]. In defense, Judo Organization lawyer Richard Muller claimed that “bowing is a custom like hand-shaking that boxers do”.[7] A Washington court eventually ruled that Akiyama continue to compete in Judo without bowing and that the rule was in violation of Washington discrimination laws however the case never made it any further.[8]

Boyle v. Jerome Country Club: Another notable religious rights case was that of Boyle v. Jerome Country Club which involved religious observation interfering with an athletic event. Oftentimes in American culture there has been a connection between religious observation and athletic competition such as football Sunday in which churchgoers pray for their teams before returning home to watch the game. However, in the instance of Boyle v. Jerome Country Club they conflicted. John Boyle claimed in his suit against the Jerome Country Club that he was discriminated against for being a member of the Church of Latter-Day Saints due to the fact that they refused to make accommodations for a golf tournament when Boyle couldn’t play on Sunday due to his religion.[9] Boyle claimed that this was a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that he was discriminated against. The question of the case and whether it violated the Civil Rights act and Boyle’s rights was not that the club didn't allow Boyle to play because of his religious beliefs but was regarding if they should have had to accommodate his religious observation. Eventually the US District Court of Idaho ruled that the Jerome Country Club was not in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 due to the fact that there were other members of the Church of Latter-Day Saints that played in the tournament and the club had legitimate business reasons to deny Boyle’s request.[10] This is a clear example of how in the case of scheduling sporting events while they might conflict with religious observation it is hard to prove it is a civil rights violation.

Menora v. Illinois High School Association: A third type of way in which religious observation and athletics clashed was through the adherence to a certain dress code for a sport. Oftentimes religious appearances deviate from the dress code of certain sports which leads to controversy. In the case of Menora v. Illinois High School Association, Orthodox Jewish men were prohibited from wearing yarmulkes fastened by bobby pins during the Illinois High School Association state basketball tournament.[11] The members of Hebrew Theological College claimed that they were being discriminated against due to their religion. While the Illinois High School Association claimed that the reason that headwear removal was required was for safety reasons this was not a compelling argument to the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. They ruled that the association must allow the players to participate in the state basketball tournament without requiring the removal of religious head coverings.

Sports - The American Religion: The practice of athletic competition and the practice of religion are two sacred aspects of American culture and these cases show just how much they interact with each other. The principles of the first amendment and the protections it has both for religious practice and secular institutions has allowed many unique cases to be brought to federal courts. The recent legal discussions over Kennedy v. Bremerton School District shows that there is still much to be decided in the relationship between sports and religion.

______________________________________________________________

Alexander Voorhees is a senior at Rutgers University majoring in Political Science. He will be attending Seton Hall University School of Law in Fall 2021 and is interested in practicing corporate law in his home state of New Jersey.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Scott C. Idleman, Religious Freedom and the Interscholastic Athlete, 12 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 295 (2001)

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1212&context=sportslaw

[2] Freedom of Religion Lincoln University Pennsylvania. 2020.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200524013011/http://www.lincoln.edu/criminaljustice/hr/Religion.htm

[3] Patrick Dorrian and Brian Flood. Praying Coach Case to Test Religious Rights of Public Workers. Bloomberg Law, January 25, 2021.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/praying-coach-case-to-test-religious-rights-of-public-workers

[4] United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Brief of Appellee. Joseph A. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. September 21, 2020.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/JosephKennedyvBremertonSchoolDistrictDocketNo20352229thCirMar1120/1?1611711649

[5] Patrick Dorrian and Brian Flood. Praying Coach Case to Test Religious Rights of Public Workers. Bloomberg Law, January 25, 2021.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/praying-coach-case-to-test-religious-rights-of-public-workers

[6] Skolnik, Sam. Judo Champion Refuses To Bend In Lawsuit. Seattle-Post-Intelligence, December 6, 2001.

https://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Judo-champion-refuses-to-bend-in-lawsuit-1073892.php

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid

[9] US District Court for the District of Idaho. Boyle v. Jerome Country Club. Justia US Law, May 10, 1995.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/883/1422/1766833/

[10] Ibid

[11] US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Menora v. Illinois High School Association. Justia US Law, November 17, 1981.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/527/637/2368887/

Photo Credit: group10ofrlg233

0 notes

davidrivkin · 4 years ago

Text

The Constitution Will Survive Covid-19

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey

Nov. 27, 2020, in the Wall Street Journal

The Covid-19 pandemic “has served as a sort of constitutional stress test,” Justice Samuel Alito observed this month. “The pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty.” The setting underscored the point: Justice Alito made his remarks in an online speech that ordinarily would have been delivered in a cavernous hall, before a crowd of hundreds gathered for the Federalist Society’s annual dinner.

A public-health emergency may justify curtailments of liberty that would be unacceptable in normal times. But even in an emergency, America’s government doesn’t wield unlimited powers. Measures taken to deal with this pandemic have imposed severe restrictions on the most basic rights and liberties, often with little consideration of their legal basis. The U.S. Constitution prohibits many of the most draconian measures taken or under consideration.

Joe Biden has implicitly acknowledged the point. Accepting the Democratic presidential nomination in August, the former vice president declared: “We’ll have a national mandate to wear a mask—not as a burden, but to protect each other. It’s a patriotic duty.” But his transition website promises only to “implement mask mandates nationwide by working with governors and mayors.”

A federal mask mandate is a nonstarter because it would have to be grounded in one of Congress’s constitutionally enumerated powers, all of which have limits. The go-to section to justify federal regulation is the clause granting lawmakers the power “to regulate commerce . . . among the several states.” As the Supreme Court held in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), which involved the ObamaCare mandate to buy medical insurance, individuals must be engaged in commercial activity before Congress can regulate them. Congress cannot impose requirements on the citizenry “precisely because they are doing nothing,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

The same is true of other prospective federal anti-Covid measures, such as a national “stay at home” order or an overall economic lockdown. Congress does have broad authority to regulate business, which it could use to impose workplace safety rules, including mask mandates. But nationwide lockdowns are a dubious legal proposition. Congress has never attempted to eliminate all or most economic activity. Any such requirement, even if supportable under the Commerce Clause, would raise significant concerns about the constitutional rights of people prevented from earning a living.

State and local mandates pose a more complicated question. Unlike the federal government, states have a general “police power” that permits them to enact public-health regulations. State and local mask mandates will likely survive judicial scrutiny, as the burden is relatively small. But quarantine requirements imposed on otherwise healthy people, and especially stay-at-home orders and shutdowns of economic activity, are another matter.

Courts have generally upheld quarantines as proper exercises of state police power. But they have traditionally required the involuntary seclusion only of infected individuals and those exposed to them. Quarantines for travelers may survive constitutional challenges. They are generally limited to 14 days or less and arguably supported by the states’ interest in limiting the potential to spread the infection from viral “hot spots.”

But states have no constitutional authority to discriminate against out-of-state persons, goods or services or to burden interstate commerce unduly. It would be hard to justify restrictions that draw arbitrary distinctions between intra- and interstate travelers or among states. New York’s current rules, for instance, exempt travelers within New York and from adjacent states while ordering quarantine for those from distant states with lower Covid rates.

Universal, open-ended stay-at-home mandates and general economic shutdowns are unprecedented in America. The former amount to the imposition of house arrest on vast numbers of people without due process or any provision for basic needs. They raise important constitutional issues involving freedom of assembly, due process and equal protection.

Mandating how many individuals can meet in one’s home, as some states did in time for Thanksgiving, is particularly difficult to justify. If the government can regulate your dinner guests, what can’t it do? Although the government has imposed location-specific curfews in times of war and civil disorder to address specific public-safety concerns, protracted populationwide curfews directed at more-nebulous threats will be difficult to justify.

Some of these issues will doubtless reach the Supreme Court, but lower courts are already wrestling with them. In County of Butler v. Wolf, William S. Stickman IV, a federal district judge in Pittsburgh, struck down Pennsylvania’s most draconian anti-Covid-19 measures. These included strict limits on indoor and outdoor gatherings, stay-at-home requirements, and the lockdown of businesses that aren’t “life-sustaining.” Judge Stickman found these measures wanting on First Amendment, due-process and equal-protection grounds, even under an “intermediate” level of scrutiny.

“A public health emergency does not give Governors and other public officials carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists,” Judge Stickman concluded in his September decision. He took particular note of Pennsylvania’s diversity of communities—and hence of Covid risks—as against the state’s “one-size fits all approach” to stay-at-home orders, which were not in any way tailored to minimize the burden while achieving the government’s legitimate ends.

Judge Stickman concluded that Pennsylvania’s business lockdown requirements failed to meet even the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny—being rationally related to a proper state purpose. He noted that the state had not articulated “a set, objective and measurable definition” of “life-sustaining” businesses, and that its requirements arbitrarily favored large retailers over small ones. Pennsylvania has appealed Judge Stickman’s decision, but it is difficult to see how the state can defend such capricious and comprehensive restrictions. The same goes for other states: Such details as closing health clubs but not beauty salons (New York), or imposing restrictions on the use of sailboats but not motorboats (Michigan), appear driven not by any rational basis but by government officials’ aesthetic and ideological preferences.

No doubt some judges will be inclined to defer to government officials in an emergency. Five Supreme Court justices did so earlier this year when churches in California and Nevada sought to enjoin state orders limiting the number of worshipers at services. In both cases, Chief Justice Roberts voted with the court’s four Democratic appointees to deny immediate relief.

But the other four justices dissented in both cases on the grounds that the orders violate freedom of religion by imposing greater limits on religious activities than comparable secular businesses, including casinos. As Justice Alito quipped during his Federalist Society speech: “Take a quick look at the Constitution. You will see the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which protects religious liberty. You will not find a craps clause.”

This Wednesday the court granted injunctive relief to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and an Orthodox synagogue, which are challenging New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s occupancy limits. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the new 5-4 majority. In a concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch observed that the state had ignored “long-settled principles” that almost always prohibit government officials “from treating religious exercises worse than comparable secular activities.”

One area in which the states clearly can impose anti-Covid mandates is vaccinations. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the Supreme court upheld the city of Cambridge’s authority to respond to a smallpox outbreak by mandating vaccines for all inhabitants. The justices affirmed that “the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”

Congress may also be able to impose vaccination or testing on employees or others engaged in commerce. But proponents of economic lockdowns overreach when they cite Jacobson in support. The case was modest in scope and dealt with a far surer remedy for a deadlier virus than Covid-19.

Federal and state officials have every right to urge Americans to take precautions against viral spread, though it would help if they consistently followed their own advice. But when the government moves beyond persuasion to coercion, its requirements must meet constitutional muster.

Some of them will, such as well-tailored state-level mask and vaccination mandates. Others probably won’t, including broad curfews, stay-at-home orders, economic lockdown mandates and measures that target protected First Amendment activities. There may be a “judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis,” Justice Gorsuch wrote in the New York case. “But . . . we may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack.”

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. They served in the White House Counsel’s Office and Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-constitution-will-survive-covid-19-11606502792

0 notes

rel390reneebrawley-blog · 8 years ago

Link

Donald Trumps Supreme Court nominee is Neil Gorsuch, who is a very religious man. He has been praised for his “robust defense of religious rights as a judge on the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals” (Burke). Donald Trump is trying to rally support from Religious leaders in order to help Gorsuch get the nomination. Gorsuch is Catholic, and his faith is very important to him. In his rulings he has been known to protect religious freedoms, for example he believed that Obamacare covering contraceptives is in direct violation of religious freedoms. These views have made him very popular among conservatives.

With this nomination the supreme court now leans conservative 5-4. This is very important especially when it comes to cases that include conservative religious views including gay marriage and abortion. With his record it is clear that Gorsuch will be using his religion to help him decide what to vote on different cases. These decisions are very important and could lead our country to be more conservative, and our laws have a religious undertone to them. This would go against the foundation of our country and oppose the separation of church and state.

0 notes

nicolebecker-sdsu-blog · 8 years ago

Link

President Donald Trump’s supreme court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, is raising a topic of conversation throughout the media and the public. Gorsuch has served over ten years as an appellate judge in Colorado and is now ready to serve on the Supreme Court. As Gorsuch's Senate confirmation hearings began on Monday, April 3rd, some hardline conservatives have raised concerns about his choice of church. His views on other controversial subjects, such as how widely the Second Amendment applies or whether abortion should be legal, are less known. This creates concern for some civilians as to what side he will choose when dealing with issues such as pro-life. One factor that makes Gorsuch stand out is the fact that he identifies himself to be an originalist. This is defined as not letting one’s personal beliefs interfere with the judicial process, only sticking within the boundaries of the established, written law. By abiding to this category, an originalist may make decisions or results that they are not personally in line with.

With personal beliefs aside, Gorsuch is a big advocate for the protective rights of religious freedoms. For example, in the Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone case, Gorsuch argued that a Muslim inmate can claim that his religious rights were violated by an Oklahoma prison that refused to provide halal food. In another case, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, Gorsuch joined the dissent in siding with an order of nuns who likewise refused to comply with the contraception mandate, arguing that it violated their religious consciences.

Gorsuch gives the statement, "My personal views, as I hope I have made clear, have nothing to do with the case before me in any case. . .The litigants deserve better than that, the law demands more than that. Their job, is to interpret the law, rendering decisions based on what the text says, not what they believe.”

This story shows how the government does not just look at one’s political background, but they have now taken into consideration one’s religious background. This could be considered a conflict of interest between the church and state divide. When electing a supreme court judge, they should be solely judged on his judicial standings rather than his pastor’s politics. This impacts not just myself, but the rest of American citizens because the supreme court a crucial aspect to the United States government. Selecting certain members while also considering their religious affiliations can persuade and influence a number of different people. People should be more concerned with his views on the Constitution and how he will follow it rather than where he attends church.

#supreme court #neil gorsuch

0 notes

toobasementtimetravel · 8 years ago

Link

Earlier this month, the Trump administration summoned two dozen religious leaders to a private meeting. The mission: to rally support for Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

from CNN.com – RSS Channel – Politics http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/18/politics/neil-gorsuch-religion/index.html via CNN

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

human-relationships-stuff · 8 years ago

Text

What is Neil Gorsuch’s religion? It’s complicated – CNNPolitics.com

St. John’s Episcopal Church

Source: What is Neil Gorsuch’s religion? It’s complicated – CNNPolitics.com

View On WordPress

#human relationships #human--relationships.com #blog posts #community #news #activity #Uncategorized

0 notes

alexwunderbuildt · 8 years ago

Text

What is Neil Gorsuch's religion? It's complicated

What is Neil Gorsuch’s religion? It’s complicated

View On WordPress

0 notes

alescelebrities · 8 years ago

Text

What is Neil Gorsuch's religion? It's complicated

What is Neil Gorsuch’s religion? It’s complicated

View On WordPress

#decision #support #us #Trump #CNN

0 notes

teddywinslow414-blog · 8 years ago

Photo

What is Neil Gorsuch's religion? It's complicated http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/18/politics/neil-gorsuch-religion/index.html CNN.com - RSS Channel - Mobile App Manual | Mario Millions

#CNN.com - RSS Channel - Mobile App Manual

0 notes

toobasementtimetravel · 8 years ago

Link

Earlier this month, the Trump administration summoned two dozen religious leaders to a private meeting. The mission: to rally support for Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

from CNN.com – RSS Channel – Mobile App Manual http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/18/politics/neil-gorsuch-religion/index.html via CNN

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

human-relationships-stuff · 8 years ago

Text

What is Neil Gorsuch’s religion? It’s complicated – CNNPolitics.com

St. John’s Episcopal Church

Source: What is Neil Gorsuch’s religion? It’s complicated – CNNPolitics.com

View On WordPress

#human relationships #human--relationships.com #blog posts #community #news #activity #Uncategorized

0 notes

maxwellyjordan · 4 years ago

Text

Symposium: Free exercise, RFRA and the need for a constitutional safety net

This article is part of a SCOTUSblog symposium on the Roberts court and the religion clauses.

Kim Colby is director of the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom. She was counsel on amicus briefs on behalf of the Christian Legal Society in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, Tanzin v. Tanvir and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.

Americans’ religious freedom depends on a patchwork of protections scattered throughout federal and state laws. Religious freedom is protected to a limited degree by the First Amendment’s free exercise clause; to a much greater degree, but only at the federal level, by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and to various degrees by specific religious exemptions tucked here and there into federal statutes and regulations. While state constitutions, as well as some state and local statutes, pay homage to religious freedom, when state courts apply them the results frequently tend to be less robust than their language would suggest.

The Supreme Court’s 2019-20 term brought significant religious freedom victories. But it also highlighted the lack of a constitutional safety net for religious freedom. The 2020-21 term offers a critical opportunity to restore a constitutional safety net that has been sorely lacking for three decades.

Thirty years ago, the Employment Division v. Smith decision unexpectedly weakened the constitutional protection for religious freedom. The Smith decision substituted rational basis review — or possibly, no review at all — for strict scrutiny review whenever a burden on the free exercise of religion is imposed by a neutral and generally applicable law. The court has never explained what it means by a neutral and generally applicable law; it is still not clear whether Smith completely gutted the First Amendment protection for religious freedom or merely shrank it considerably and made it much more complicated and confused. Whatever the degree of damage, this loss of protection applies at the federal level and also at state and local levels.

The cases before the court this term and next term illustrate Smith’s regrettable long-term consequences and demonstrate why the court should overrule Smith. A case to be heard next term, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, expressly presents that question.

1. Constitutional protection at state and local levels is needed.

Americans’ religious freedom varies widely depending on the state in which they live. Smith deprived religious persons of previous bargaining power and incentives necessary to persuade state and local officials to respect religious freedom.

To provide protection in states, the court has labored to identify discriminatory treatment of religious persons because Smith itself left strict scrutiny in place when religious persons suffer discriminatory treatment. The court has utilized two distinct buckets to protect religious persons:

1. Discrimination based on religious status: In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, relying on the state constitution, Montana bureaucrats excluded parents and students from a state tuition tax-credit program because many participating families chose to send their children to religious schools. The court held that the Montana constitution impermissibly discriminated on the basis of religious status in violation of the federal free exercise clause.

2. Discriminatory treatment compared to similar secular conduct: Just three years after Smith, in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, the court unanimously ruled that a municipality violated the free exercise clause when it prohibited killing animals as part of a religious ritual, but not as part of a secular activity, such as hunting. In 2018, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court applied Lukumi in ruling that state officials unconstitutionally punished a man of deep religious convictions who refused to create a wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding, but did not penalize other bakers who refused to create cakes with messages to which they personally objected.

Requiring government officials to treat religious conduct with the same respect given similar secular conduct has been an important, if unevenly applied, protection for religious freedom under the Smith regime. But it is not an adequate substitute for reliable constitutional protection of religious freedom achieved through consistent application of strict scrutiny analysis to laws that burden religious freedom. Fulton – which involves a city’s denial of licensure to a Catholic organization’s foster-care program – gives the court an opportunity to reinstate strict scrutiny for such laws.

2. RFRA’s protection for religious freedom at the federal level requires reinforcement.

In response to Smith, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law. RFRA requires the federal government to demonstrate a compelling interest unachievable by a less restrictive means before it may enforce a neutral, generally applicable law against a person whose sincerely held religious beliefs would be substantially burdened by the law.

RFRA, rather than the First Amendment, has provided the primary protection for Americans’ religious freedom at the federal level for 27 years. A singular legislative achievement, RFRA ensures a level playing field for Americans of all faiths by putting minority faiths and unpopular religious beliefs on an equal footing with faiths that are politically popular.

Two cases on the court’s 2019 and 2020 dockets illustrate RFRA’s importance to persons of all faiths. In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, Catholic nuns returned to the Supreme Court for the third time in their nine-year effort to win the right to serve the poor without violating their religious convictions regarding contraceptives. Ruling in the Little Sisters’ favor, the court held that the federal government had the authority under RFRA to provide a generous religious and moral exemption from an administrative regulation that required employers to provide contraceptive coverage through their insurance plans. Unfortunately, the court did not follow the course urged by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch to find that RFRA not only permitted the exemption but actually required it. In a concurrence, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, provided a roadmap for the lower court on remand to rule against the religious exemption — a prospect that may necessitate a fourth trip to the Supreme Court for the Little Sisters before final victory.

The second RFRA case, Tanzin v. Tanvir, will be argued this fall. Three Muslim men, one a U.S. citizen and two lawful permanent residents, seek to recover money damages from federal FBI employees who allegedly retaliated against them by placing them on the “No Fly List” for their refusal to become FBI informants within their religious congregations. The issue before the court is whether RFRA’s authorization of “appropriate relief” includes recovery of money damages from federal officials acting in their personal capacities.

The coalition of 68 organizations from across the religious and political spectrum that urged RFRA’s passage had one overriding operative principle: RFRA would protect all Americans’ religious freedom. Anticipating RFRA’s main task as protecting minority faiths, few proponents foresaw that Catholic nuns would be denied a modest religious exemption by a popularly elected administration and, therefore, need RFRA’s protection.

But the times have changed rapidly and dramatically. Since 2010, religious social conservatives have increasingly faced a rigid insistence that they conform to and promote the orthodoxies of the abortion and LGBT movements even when those orthodoxies directly conflict with their religious beliefs.

As a result, Congress is being pressured to eviscerate RFRA. The Equality Act, H.R. 5, passed the House of Representatives in May 2019 by a vote of 236-173, with a provision buried in it to gut RFRA. The Equality Act’s proponents are willing to forfeit all Americans’ religious freedom in order to suppress religious dissent.

In its decision this term in Bostock v. Clayton County, which re-interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes, the court offered reassurance that RFRA, Title VII’s religious exemption and the “ministerial exception” will suffice to protect religious individuals and institutions. But more needs to be done to make its promise a reality. This is particularly true because many state officials are likely to apply Bostock’s rationale to re-interpret state prohibitions on sex discrimination in employment, public accommodations and government programs. Title VII’s religious exemption and RFRA do not follow Bostock’s analysis downstream to the states.

The court’s reaffirmation in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru of the First Amendment’s strong protection for religious employers’ decisions about who will lead their religious mission and teach their religious beliefs does apply to the states. But the protection, while strong, is limited and does not extend to all employees.

More to the point, Our Lady’s protection of this essential right was possible only because, eight years ago in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the court set Smith to one side. In Hosanna-Tabor, the U.S. government argued that the free exercise clause offered no protection to a religious congregation’s decisions regarding who would be its minister or teach its faith in its school. The government understandably relied on Smith for this jaw-dropping proposition, only to find its reliance rejected by a unanimous court. But by requiring the court continually to cabin it or create workarounds, Smith works distinctive institutional damage to the court’s reputation.

RFRA and the “ministerial exception” have performed yeoman’s work. But they urgently need reinforcement through restoration of consistent and reliable constitutional protection for religious freedom.

By protecting all religious beliefs regardless of their popularity, religious freedom makes it possible for Americans with starkly different worldviews to live peaceably together. Now is the time to restore substantive constitutional protection for all Americans regardless of what they believe or where they live.

The post Symposium: Free exercise, RFRA and the need for a constitutional safety net appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/symposium-free-exercise-rfra-and-the-need-for-a-constitutional-safety-net/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

#law #justice

0 notes

sunshineandprogress-blog1 · 8 years ago

Text

Neil Gorsuch: Trump's SCOTUS Nominee, a Silent Extremist

youtube

Donald Trump has nominated Neil M. Gorsuch, Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, to the U.S. Supreme Court. He announced his choice the same way that President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the exact same position over a year ago. Although, now Trump, Republicans in Congress, and Mitch McConnell, expect Democrats to fall in line a vote for Gorsuch's confirmation and ignore the blatant opposition Republicans displayed, by refusing to give Merrick Garland a Hearing, much less a vote. The organization Lambda Legal http://www.lambdalegal.org, is formally opposing Gorsuch's nomination. They believe his record shows hostility towards the LGBT community, women, and other marginalized groups. This is their first time opposing a Supreme Court nomination before a confirmation hearing. Grouch's record on critical issues like religious exemptions, is also cause for alarm.

According to the CEO of Lambda Legal, Rachel B. Tiven, “Judge Gorsuch’s opinion in the 10th Circuit Hobby Lobby decision is disqualifying. The Hobby Lobby decision set a terrible and destructive standard for bosses being allowed to meddle in our sex lives and decide whether or not birth control is covered by the employer’s insurance plan. In Judge Gorsuch’s decision, he calls the inclusion of health coverage that includes birth control – ‘complicity…in the wrongdoing of others." When ruling on the Hobby Lobby case, the SCOTUS judges mad it clear that favoring one religion over another can set a dangerous precedent; this does not move Gorsuch. We know that what happens in Washington will affect our lives for four years, but what happens at the Supreme Court can affect the nation for decades. Continue reading at: http://www.sunshineandprogress.com/sunshine-progress.

Continue reading at: http://www.sunshineandprogress.com/sunshine-progress.

#SAProgress #supreme court #courts #scotus #corporations #choice #lambda legal #hobby lobby #lgbtq #rulings #citizens united

0 notes

viralhottopics · 8 years ago

Text

Who is Neil Gorsuch? A staunch conservative with a background to worry liberals

Donald Trumps nominee to the supreme court has written about liberals relying on judicial rulings to advance their social agenda

In a 2005 essay titled Liberals N Lawsuits, Neil Gorsuch, then a corporate lawyer in Washington, DC, argued that American liberals had come to rely too much on court decisions to advance their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.

Published just months after the re-election of George W Bush, it was a remarkable bit of concern-trollingahead of its time. If liberals really wanted to enact their agenda, Gorsuch wrote, they should focus on trying to win elections rather than lawsuits.

Fast-forward 12 years. American liberals and quite a few centrists too have lost another election and many have once again turned their eyes to the courts, hoping for protection from what looks to many of them like a vicious attack by the executive branch on core rights and freedoms.

If Donald Trump has his way Gorsuch will be in a position this time to do more than just write an essay. If confirmed by the Senate as the newest justice on the US supreme court, he will have unique power to help vindicate or frustrate liberals strategy.

The announcement of Gorsuchs nomination in a hyped White House spectacle on Tuesday night was greeted with expressions of concern on the left and robust cheer on the right. Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, hailed Gorsuch as a principled constitutionalist with an obviously brilliant legal mind.

Trump picks Neil Gorsuch for US supreme court

He is someone who is going to look at any question according to what the constitution itself says, setting aside his own political views whatever they may be, Severino said.

A partisan scrum has developed around the nomination nevertheless, with Democrats vowing a filibuster and the Republican senate leadership vowing a confirmation. The air of partisan controversy is not obviously rooted in Gorsuchs track record as a circuit court judge, which does not include rulings on the kinds of hot-button social issues he alluded to in his Bush-era essay.

Gorsuchs disposition on abortion rights cases may be suggested in a line from a book he wrote about euthanasia, the subject of his doctoral studies at Oxford University. To act intentionally against life is to suggest that its value rests only on its transient instrumental usefulness for other ends, Gorsuch wrote.

Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the onus was on the nominee to explain his position on the issue.

Given president Trumps promise to appoint a supreme court justice that would seek to overturn Roe v Wade, we need to know whether Judge Gorsuch would do just that, Northup said.

Our constitution guarantees a womans right to safe, legal abortion. Any effort to gut those protections would harm the rights and health of women for generations to come.

But beyond any single issue Gorsuch has articulated a judicial philosophy that emphasizes the primacy of the constitution and prizes the text of laws, while warning against judicial forays that might be mistaken for an attempt to shape or direct legislation.

Congress could have written the law differently than it did, and it is always free to rewrite the law when it wishes, Gorsuch wrote in a ruling that argued for a new hearing for a felon convicted of firearm possession. But in our legal order it is the role of the courts to apply the law as it is written, not some different law Congress might have written in the past or might write in the future.

In some ways Gorsuch seems likely to please social conservatives. He has repeatedly upheld claims of a religious exemption where the law would compel an individual to violate a personal spiritual belief. While the supreme court declined to consider one such religious liberty case in 2016, in which a family-owned pharmacy objected to a state regulation forcing it to sell emergency contraceptives, future cases in the area seem likely.

In Hobby Lobby Stores Inc v Sebelius, Gorsuch argued that a retail store owner need not comply with a provision in Barack Obamas health care law requiring employers to provide health insurance covering oral contraceptives. In his opinion Gorsuch gave wide berth to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which asserts the religious liberty claim and which Gorsuch called a super-statute.

Hannah Smith, a lawyer at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented Hobby Lobby in the case, praised the judges ruling.

That opinion is an example that he is a clear thinker, a clear writer on really complicated religious liberty issues, Smith told the Guardian. They were faced with a Hobsons choice, to choose to abide by their religion or saving their business. I think hes someone who would stand up for the religious liberty for all.

Elsewhere Gorsuch has ruled sympathetically in cases involving the erection of Ten Commandments monuments in public spaces and ruled against capital punishment defendants seeking relief from their sentences.

In the integrity of his adherence to the principal of judicial restraint, as well as in the pithy eloquence if he lacks a certain acerbity of his opinions, Gorsuch is often compared favorably with the justice he would replace, Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016.

His writing style has often been compared to Justice Scalias, Severino said. Its very incisive, very clear and logical, but also very entertaining, and of course that was a hallmark of Justice Scalias own writing style.

Gorsuch spoke about Scalias death in an April 2016 speech at Case Western University. I was taking a breather in the middle of a ski run with little on my mind but the next mogul field when my phone rang with the news, Gorsuch said.

I immediately lost what breath I had left, and I am not embarrassed to admit that I couldnt see the rest of the way down the mountain for the tears. He really was a lion of the law: docile in private life but a ferocious fighter when at work, with a roar that could echo for miles.

Gorsuchs biggest difference with Scalia comes in the field of administrative law, an area that is sleepy for most laypeople but determines the scope of much government action. The Trump nominee has been a critic of Chevrondeference, a doctrine that gives administrative agencies significant latitude with how they interpret federal statutes. His views, which are shared by a number of conservative legal scholars, would significantly weaken the federal government and allow the courts to override agency actions on issues ranging from immigration to health care to the environment.

But several former colleagues of Gorsuchs from across the ideological spectrum have called for Gorsuchs confirmation, saying his temperament is distinctly different from Scalia.

Scalias writing seemed dismissive to the claims of gay rights, said Melissa Hart, professor at the University of Colorado Law School who worked with Gorsuch. Everything I know about Neil Gorsuch as a person leads me to believe he would not be dismissive of anyones claims, regardless of how he rules. Im not saying I think he will rule in favor of LGBT rights but I dont think he will be dismissive of anyones claims.

Hart said she believes Gorsuch is more than qualified to be on the supreme court, echoing an op-ed in the New York Times by Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general under Barack Obama, that called for liberals to back Gorsuch.

I understand the political reasons for wanting to block the nomination, Hart said, but I dont think theres a principled reason to reject Neil Gorsuch as a jurist.

Neil McGill Gorsuch was born on 29 August 1967 and grew up in Denver, Colorado. His family moved to Washington, DC, after Ronald Reagan nominated his mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Gorsuch attended Georgetown preparatory school, Columbia University, Harvard Law school and Oxford University, where he enrolled on a Marshall scholarship and earned a doctorate.

He fits the mold of every sitting justice on the US supreme court in educational pedigree: they all went to Harvard or Yale for law school.

Post-graduation, Gorsuch worked for a decade representing mostly corporate clients at the Washington law firm of Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel.

But Mark Hansen, the nominees former boss at the firm, told the Denver Post that Gorsuch was a regular person.

He acts and relates well to all people, and he did the same sort of thing in trial, where he was very good at making connections with jurors, Hansen said. Hes a regular person. Its part of being a Westerner.

At Oxford, Gorsuch met his future wife, Louise Gorsuch, a UK citizen. With their two teenage daughters they lives outside Boulder, Colorado, where Gorsuch indulges hobbies including fly-fishing, hiking and rowing.

After his 2005 essay subtly celebrating the re-election of George W Bush, Gorsuch got good news from the administration. Gorsuch was to be appointed to the 10th circuit appeals court, which covers all or part of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.

In 2006, when it came time for the Senate to review his nomination, Gorsuch was confirmed in the most expeditious way possible, by a voice vote and encountering no objection.

This time may be different.

With reporting by Ben Jacobs