Category

Legal

CWA of Maine Stands Up for Gorsuch

By | LBB, Legal, Maine, News and Events | No Comments

On March 5, at the University of Southern Maine, 600 people showed up for a listening session held by Sen. Angus King to voice their opinions on the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Sixty affirmative votes are needed to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch in the Senate, and Sen. King could be the key vote. Among the crowd were several CWA members joined with Maine’s CWA state director, Penny Morrell, and CWA National Communications Coordinator Janae Stracke.

Sen. King shared that he hadn’t decided which way he was going to vote, but stated he met privately with Gorsuch last week to better understand his judicial philosophy and temperament. The first session lasted two hours, and Sen. King determined that was not enough and added two more hours to the session in order to hear as many Mainers as possible.

The opposition had surely mobilized, but CWA of Maine was your voice to cut through the liberal talking points.

CWA’s own Penny Morrel said, “Antonin Scalia was a strict constitutionalist. He didn’t make laws. … Judge Gorsuch will do the same.” Others joined with her to explain that Gorsuch will be bipartisan and see both sides. Members held signs and wore stickers that represented CWA’s support for Gorsuch.

CWA Communications Coordinator Janae Stracke was also present to represent CWA members and spoke on their behalf.

Special thanks to the members of CWA of Maine for coming out and speaking up at the listening session! We’re confident that Sen. King heard our voices, and we will pray that he ensures Mainers get the U.S. Supreme Court Justice they deserve and America needs.


Samantha Stohlman is part of Concerned Women for America’s 2017 Ronald Reagan Memorial Internship class.

CWA of FL State Director Terri Johannessen: Neil Gorsuch fight will expose Sen. Nelson’s priorities

By | Florida, LBB, Legal, News and Events | No Comments


“I was an acting solicitor general for President Barack Obama; Judge Gorsuch has strong conservative bona fides and was appointed to the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush. But I have seen him up close and in action, both in court and on the Federal Appellate Rules Committee (where both of us serve); he brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court.”

That is the simple truth. But now Democratic senators that are up for re-election, including Nelson, are being pressured by the radical left to forget about the facts and oppose Gorsuch out of spite for the election. I hope they do not give in to the political assault of this honorable nominee.

Floridians don’t care much about Washington politics and “payback.” We care about what is happening in our communities and our hurting families.

This is a good judge by every account who will follow the law and respect our senators’ role in enacting laws. He should be confirmed swiftly so our senators can get back to the task of fixing the rising cost of our health care, getting our economy back on track, and protecting our state and nation from terrorism.

Click here to read this entire op-ed as featured in The Sun Sentinel.

CWA of MO State Director Bev Ehlen: Claire McCaskill should vote for the well-qualified Neil Gorsuch

By | LBB, Legal, Missouri | No Comments

President Donald Trump’s choice for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, is the perfect example of a simple, nonpartisan issue that has become a battle simply because of politics. Playing politics on issues such as this is what disgusts Americans when it comes to Washington.

By all accounts, Gorsuch is a man of impeccable character and the highest of qualifications. Yet, he is being opposed strongly by the radical left because of, well, Trump. Ridiculous.

Click here to read the entire op-ed as featured in The Kansas City Star.

Supremely Inappropriate: Anti-Trump, for Gorsuch Ginsburg

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events | No Comments

It gets tiring writing about U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s inappropriate politicking. Reading about it, one wishes she would have finally taken the DNC Chair position and been done with it.  But alas, we are still stuck with her at the Supreme Court.

Still, she’s not happy about President Trump, and she wants the world to know.  In an interview with the BBC, Ginsburg said, “We’re not experiencing the best of times.” You see, her worst nightmare has come true.  Remember, she told the New York Times, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.” Well, she doesn’t have to imagine anymore, and she is reeling.

But she is hopeful, she told the BBC: “A great man once said that the true symbol of the United States is not the bald eagle; it is the pendulum, and when the pendulum swings too far in one direction, it will go back.”  One day, President Trump will be out of office, and another Democrat will be in the White House, and she will be happy again.

This is one of our nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices speaking this way to an international audience.  Unbelievable.

She goes on to say how hopeful she felt with the Women’s March.  And, of course, the free press.  Anything that can stand in the way of Trump.  We are left assured that she will, of course, fully stand against him at the Supreme Court, so we are covered.

Ginsburg also offered public praise for Judge Neil Gorsuch, even though he is President Donald Trump’s choice. “I’ve worked with him, and I think he’s very easy to get along with,” the Associated Press quotes her saying at an appearance at George Washington University, “He writes very well.”

For someone so set against President Trump to praise Judge Gorsuch is something worth noting.  Her comments would otherwise be innocuous, but given the context, no such deference can be given.

Any hope Ginsburg would show proper respect for her role as a Supreme Court Justice is long gone.  So, this is simply her latest attempt at meddling with the political processes, as she did in the case of Merrick Garland.  And it is, regrettably, yet another example for all other judges of how not to behave.

The Scalia-Like Judge

By | LBB, News and Events | No Comments

Time waits for no one. One year ago today, the great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away.  His absence in the Court has been noticeable, and yet, his legacy continues to influence our judicial system in very significant ways.

It is a great testimony to his legacy that, as we look for his replacement at the Supreme Court, the highest compliment we can pay is to say we want someone that is “Scalia-like.”

This was the promise President Donald Trump made during the campaign trail that got him so much support from the conservative base.

Now he has followed through in that promise by nominating Judge Neil Gorsuch of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Gorsuch espouses the same type of commitment to the text of the Constitution and the limited role of a judge.  They both approach the judicial role with a certain humility that gives deference to the other branches of government and allows for “We the People” to struggle through the difficult issues and policies we want to adopt.

This is good for our judiciary and vital for a healthy constitutional republic as ours.

Judge Gorsuch has shown great respect for Justice Scalia throughout his career.  He spoke very movingly at his announcement at the White House, saying, “Justice Scalia was a lion of the law. Agree or disagree with him, all of his colleagues on the bench shared his wisdom and his humor. And like them, I miss him.”

It was a powerful moment, considering also that the widow of Justice Scalia was present for the solemn occasion.

It would be worth your time to watch his full speech at Cave Western Reserve University School of Law, titled “Of Lions and Bears, Judges and Legislators: Some Reflections on the Legacy of Justice Scalia.”

Judge Gorsuch’s embrace of Justice Scalia is a great testimony to his judicial acumen, and we can only hope that it helps to promulgate the idea.  A Supreme Court, indeed a judicial branch, full of Scalia-like judges might just be the thing that can help us return to the founding principles that established our nation as the freest in history.

Confident of Gorsuch on Life

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events, Planned Parenthood, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

Look, I know the pro-life issue is an emotional one. The sanctity of human life and the intrinsic value of every human being as created in the image of God demand no less of us, so I would not expect anything less. But in assessing a judge’s record, we must be conscious of what we are looking for in making that assessment.

We do not need a judge who promises to overturn Roe v. Wade. That hideous case has been the focus of pro-lifers’ ire ever since it was rendered, because of the enormous impact it has had (almost 60 million lives lost now), but the fact is that it is just one part of the pro-life work.

The anti-slavery movement was a pro-life movement. Efforts against embryonic stem cell experimentation are part of the pro-life cause. In recent years, a troublesome pro-euthanasia movement has awakened, and that is something we will continue to fight vigorously.

Certainly, the fight for the value of every human life will continue and perhaps intensify when Roe is finally overturned.

So what we must look for in a judge is someone committed to the law and the Constitution as written — committed to our country’s founding principle that we are “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Those principles will guard life in all areas. Read More

Sessions Wins Cloture Vote

By | Legal, News and Events, Sessions | No Comments

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) is one step closer to becoming the 84th Attorney General of the United States.  Today, the Senate voted 52 to 47 to invoke cloture and end the debate on his confirmation.  A 30-hour discussion period will follow, after which the final vote is expected Wednesday night.

This is great news for Concerned Women for America (CWA); we feel Sen. Jeff Sessions is just the type of leader the Department of Justice needs, especially after eight years of politicization under the Obama Administration and former Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

Please keep Sen. Sessions and the Senate in your prayers as they continue to consider his nomination.

I also ask you to pray for Sen. Sessions’ replacement.  Once Sen. Sessions is confirmed and sworn in (probably on Thursday), Alabama Governor Robert J. Bentley (R) will appoint a replacement to his Senate seat.  With the increase in irrational partisanship in Washington, let us pray Sen. Sessions’ replacement is as dedicated to the constitutional principles that guard our liberty as he was.

Sen. Session’s 20 years of service will be a hard act to follow, but we are praying that God will raise a man or woman “for such a time as this.”

More to come, so stay tuned.

Gorsuch in Little Sisters of the Poor

By | LBB, News and Events | No Comments

I’ve already highlighted for you Judge Neil Gorsuch’s admirable judicial instincts and philosophy as he concurred in the Hobby Lobby religious liberty case.

Another example of his clear thinking in this area of the law comes to us through a wonderful dissent he joined in the Little Sisters of the Poor case.  Written by Judge Harris Hartz and joined by Judge Gorsuch and three other judges, the dissent took a strong stance for our constitutional rights to religious freedom, emphasizing that “[I]t is not the job of the judiciary to tell people what their religious beliefs are.”

But that is what the majority did.  While it did not doubt the sincerity of the Little Sisters of the Poor, it concluded they didn’t really object to signing a form to facilitate the distribution of contraceptives and abortifacients it considered sinful, it was the actual distribution of them, so it wasn’t really an imposition on their religious liberty.

Judge Gorsuch, joining Judge Hartz in dissent, disagreed, calling the majority’s view “a dangerous approach to religious liberty.”  They said:

The opinion of the panel majority is clearly and gravely wrong — on an issue that has little to do with contraception and a great deal to do with religious liberty. When a law demands that a person do something the person considers sinful, and the penalty for refusal is a large financial penalty, then the law imposes a substantial burden on that person’s free exercise of religion.

That much was clear.  But the majority called the objection a mere derivative of a core belief.  The dissent raised the troubling concern with the view with one simple question, “Could we really tolerate letting courts examine the reasoning behind a religious practice or belief and decide what is core and what is derivative?”

The clear answer is “no.”  And, not only does common sense dictate this (which it does), but Supreme Court precedent demands it, too (which is the more important question for a judge, whatever his personal beliefs).  The dissent again:

The Supreme Court has refused to examine the reasonableness of a sincere religious belief — in particular, the reasonableness of where the believer draws the line between sinful and acceptable — at least since Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707, 715 (1981), and it emphatically reaffirmed that position in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2778 (2014).

Still, the majority, compelled by strong feelings no doubt, ruled against denying a rehearing of the Little Sisters of the Poor case.

The dissent, though, was not fazed by the majority’s opinion refusal to adhere by clear precedent, concluding, “Fortunately, the doctrine of the panel majority will not long survive. It is contrary to all precedent concerning the free exercise of religion.”

They (including Judge Gorsuch) were, of course, ultimately proven right by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gorsuch in Hobby Lobby

By | Gorsuch, LBB, Legal, News and Events | No Comments

Reading through President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch’s decisions is a pleasure for those of us who love the Constitution and the rule of law.  Here is a good example.

Before the Supreme Court ever heard the Hobby Lobby case, Judge Gorsuch took a stab at it in his time at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

If you remember, after ramming through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obamacare, with not a single Republican vote in support, using every dirty, political trick in the book (and even inventing new ones), the Obama Administration insisted in unnecessarily forcing Christian businesses to violate their conscience and pay for contraceptives and abortifacients, even if to do so would be against their deeply held religious beliefs.

The Green family of Hobby Lobby and many other Christian businesses objected to this violation of their religious freedom and sued under the Religious Freedom Restoration act (RFRA).

In the case of a constitutionalist, like Judge Gorsuch, the case was a simple one.  And it was most certainly not about their personal religious views or policy preferences.  Here is how he put it, concurring in judgment in favor of the Greens.

In many ways this case is the tale of two statutes. The ACA compels the Greens to act. RFRA says they need not. We are asked to decide which legislative direction controls. The tie-breaker is found not in our own opinions about good policy but in the laws Congress enacted. Congress structured RFRA to override other legal mandates, including its own statutes, if and when they encroach on religious liberty. (Emphasis mine)

Simple.  Clear.  Beautifully put.  A judge that keeps his personal feelings about the issues of the day out of the judicial process and follows the law and the Constitution as written instead is a judge that can be impartial in the most important moments in our history when the nation is having particularly heated debates about the best policies the country should enact.

That type of judge brings stability to the courts and makes our nation stronger by protecting our freedoms.  It’s the type of judge Justice Scalia was, and we’re thrilled that he will be replaced by someone committed to the same principle.

Guess Who Voted to Confirm Gorsuch in 2006?

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events | No Comments

As we engage on the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and we start seeing the left struggle to make the case against yet another decent, well-qualified, mainstream nominee, I will be posting regularly with daily insights into the happenings here in the nation’s capital.

I hope you’ve had a chance to read our press release on Gorsuch and some initial thoughts on the announcement.  Gorsuch is a solid, conservative choice who should be confirmed swiftly and unanimously, as Scalia was back in 1986.

But we live in different times now, and the left is already launching politically motivated attacks at this stellar nominee.  One Democratic super pac produced a 78-page dossier, calling him “too extreme for the Supreme Court.”

We are far removed from even 2006 when this collection of “right-wing extremists,” who are apparently “not sensitive to civil rights,” not committed to “core constitutional principles,” and who want to “roll back women’s progress,” (note: this is what they say about everyone) voted for the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals:

 

Barack Obama (D-Illinois)

Joe Biden (D-Delaware)

John Kerry (D-Massachusetts)

Hillary Clinton (D-New York)

 

Chuck Schumer (D-New York)

Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)

Dianne Feinstein (D-California)

Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)

Bill Nelson (D-Florida)

Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey)

Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Patty Murray (D-Washington)

Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)

Tom Carper (D-Delaware)

Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)

Maria Cantwell (D-Washington)

Senators in the latter part of the list are still serving today.