Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court

A Life Site News opinion written by Steve Jalsevac warns that Judge Neil Gorsuch is no Antonin Scalia, based on Gorsuch's testimony before the Senate during his confirmation hearings. Specifically on his answers to Sen. Dick Durban regarding precedent, and his praise of Court Members who are not Pro-Life.

I disagree and would recommend Pro-Life and Pro-Traditional Family voters not worry about these specific concerns.

I watched the Gorsuch hearings on CSPAN, this incident in particular. The reason Sen. Durban and other Democrats asked these questions on precedent and other court members appear to me to be two fold at least;

1. This was an organized attempt by Democrats to force Gorsuch to have to recuse himself should a case involving the possibility to overturn Roe v. Wade come to the Supreme court in coming years. Even if Gorsuch did not recuse himself, the Abortion Lobby's Legislators would use his answers as a war cry to at minimum emotionalize and inflame the decision, which always seems to affect Justice Kennedy to the Progressive's benefit
2. Trapping Gorsuch into an alleged or contrived back-handed insult of Kennedy would likewise drive the impressionable Jurist further into the arms of Justices Kagan and Sotomayer, possibly contributing to the politicization of the Supreme court as similar tactics have successfully politicized the Intelligence community, especially the CIA under director John Brennan and acting director Mike Morell

The reason Gorsuch answered as such was to ensure that he does not even present any appearance of either needing to recuse himself or of contributing to any animosity or personality divsions on the High Court. He has to say that he respects the rule of Law. What was unsaid here is that the Supreme court also gets to decide what is precedent - and that will be key to overturning Roe and Doe. The Democrats were trying to force Gorsuch to say that Roe was some type of Super Precedent, when in fact it is no different from other precedents that were eventually overturned because they were wrongly decided, cases such as Dred Scott that declared once a slave always a slave even in a free state, and Plessey vs. Fergusion which set the precedent that Separate but Equal schools were an acceptable way to maintain Segregation.

I am simply not worried about this. All of Gorsuch's body of work shows he will maintain an Originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Straying from Originalism has led to almost all the mistakes in Jurisprudence in the USA.
I'm also sure my thoughts here are not original at all, lots of people way smarter than me think Gorsuch would make an excellent choice for the SCOTUS.