Neil Gorsuch is a Giant for the Conservative Cause

in Politics


There’s a lot there for the Left to fear and for the Right to cheer. That’s the hilarious irony of Stern’s article. Everything he says that makes liberals tremble in their Birkenstocks will make conservatives jump for joy. But since he took the time to make his case for why Justice Gorsuch is a monster of Lovecraftian proportions, it’s only fair to present the other side of the argument.

First, Stern briefly lays out why Justice Gorsuch is anti-gay:

“Gorsuch indicated that he opposes equal rights for same-sex couples, dissenting from a ruling that requires states to list same-sex parents on birth certificates.”

Stern makes some fleeting references to Obergefell v. Hodges, a case responsible for codified gay marriage that conferred upon same-sex couples all the rights that are owed to heterosexual couples. Nowhere does Stern make any reference to Justice Gorsuch’s dissent and not without good reason, as the justice’s expertise lays waste to Stern’s effete indignation.

In his dissent in Pavan vs Smith, Justice Gorsuch, ever the originalist, masterfully explains that “nothing in Obergefell indicates that a birth registration regime based on biology… offends the Constitution.” We on the Right should be greatly encouraged by his dedication to the document that enshrines the precepts and principles of our nation. Predictably, this is a source of terror and outrage for the Left.

What Pavan vs. Smith illustrates is what happens when an interventionist federal government seeks to enforce a nationwide top-down morality in lieu of states rights. What was once a no-brainer—biological parents listed on the birth certificate—has been turned on its head in the name of political correctness, special interests, hurt feelings, and blatant contradictions to the obvious boundaries of basic biology. What was once a matter of common sense is now an over-complicated mess, one consuming valuable minutes at the Supreme Court. This is why states are supposed to be sovereign, a concept that Justice Gorsuch understands exceptionally well.

Of course, not every nationwide top-down mandate should be condemned, such as the 2nd Amendment, which isn’t so much a mandate as it is a guarantee of our right to bear firearms as a means of protecting our personal safety as well as protecting the whole of the country against statist tyranny. That is what is really at the heart of Stern’s condemnation of Justice Gorsuch and Justice Thomas dissenting in Peruta vs. California.

At issue in this case is “Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.” Justices Thomas and Gorsuch both acknowledge that the right to bear arms must not be infringed. And they understand, openly or otherwise, that the primary purpose of this right is to challenge tyranny.

Because liberalism is a blind faith religion that regards government as its supreme being, it cannot tolerate the heretical notion that its deity may be challenged by mere mortals. It is a detestable idea to the Left, but it is of the utmost importance to the safety of our nation. By his actions on the bench, Justice Gorsuch has unambiguously demonstrated his belief that patriotism is love of country, not subservience to the state.

Mark Joseph Stern referred to Justice Gorsuch’s allegiance to Constitution and country as a “bizarre opinion.”

Stern’s next complaint comes from Justice Gorsuch’s alleged “deep hostility to the separation of church and state.” For the reasons stated in the above paragraph, this is simply laughable. For Stern, his religion is the state, no separation exists at all nor could it. Writing previously for Slate regarding President Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban” and the Establishment Clause, Stern wrote the following:

“The [Supreme Court] has also declared that the government may not “aid or oppose any religion. This prohibition is absolute.”

The emphasis is mine.

Stern has no problem using the Establishment Clause to condemn the alleged persecution of Muslims, but when it comes to singling out Christianity for discrimination, his principles go right out the window. Justice Gorsuch isn’t a take-it-or-leave-it kind of guy. He doesn’t have the luxury of blowing with the wind the way Stern does. He’s consistent because he has integrity.

Stern wraps up his frightened little screed with a parting shot at President Trump’s recent victory regarding his temporary travel ban. After conceding the ban wasn’t completely reinstated, Stern says Justice Gorsuch “would’ve let the travel ban take effect in its entirety, as he believes it to be lawful. So much for the fantasy of Gorsuch standing up to Trump.”

In one terrified article, Mark Joseph Stern summarizes the sorry state of modern liberalism’s desperate death spiral into confusion and obsolescence. By squabbling over matters best left to the states, liberals display their disdain for federalism and fealty to an ever-growing centralized state. This fealty is reiterated by their pathological opposition to the tools needed by citizens to defend their homes and country against a government gone wild. They despise Christianity, a time-tested bulwark against barbarism, while unabashedly welcoming barbarians to our shores.

Stern would have us believe that dedication to the Constitution, traditional values, and self-defense makes Justice Gorsuch a wimp or a monster or somehow both. As with all things believed by the Left, the reality is the exact opposite of their delusions. As Stern aptly noted in the beginning of his limp hit-piece, Justice Gorsuch may be on the SCOTUS for thirty years. It’ll be exciting for patriots to watch his career unfold and to see which enemies of liberty he defeats next.

The Left will, of course, be terrified every step of the way.

Original artwork by Jesse Comeau.


Latest from Politics

Go to Top
