It doesn’t take much research or ‘soul searching’ to know that any Supreme Court nominee by President Trump would NOT be friendly to issues of concern to secular people. You don’t even need to do any Internet searching because the major freethought groups already have the goods on Neil Gorsuch. Obviously, any ‘little Scalia’ is no friend of ours.
In the now-infamous Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case, for-profit corporations argued that providing such coverage for their employees violated their owners’ religious freedom. Gorsuch was one of the judges who heard the case before it went to the Supreme Court. He and his colleagues sided with the corporations, saying that the businesses must receive a religious exemption from the coverage requirement. The decision, however, failed to acknowledge that the Constitution prohibits the government from granting religious exemptions if they would result in real harm to others, such as denying women access to important medical services. Subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled the same way.
Gorsuch also dissented in American Atheists v. Davenport, which challenged a practice of memorializing fallen Utah Highway Patrol officers by erecting, on the side of state highways, 12-foot-tall crosses bearing the Highway Patrol’s symbol. Gorsuch contended that the Highway Patrol could allow a non-profit group to erect these large crosses on public property because the crosses did not promote the Christian religion. What’s even more troubling is that Gorsuch’s opinion questioned whether it should even be unconstitutional for governmental bodies to endorse religion.
I’m familiar with the “cross is generic” argument when it was used to defend the Ohio state motto in the late 1990s.
The Religion News Service adds:
3. Gorsuch opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide, two positions that coincide with Catholic doctrine and the views of a majority of Christian denominations.
He wrote a book titled “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia” that argued for maintaining laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia.
4. Gorsuch has not ruled in an abortion-related case.
But he is lauded by many conservative religious people and groups who seek the overturning of Roe v. Wade because of how he wrote about the value of life in his book. “All human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong,” he wrote. “The law … doesn’t just apply to protect popular religious beliefs: it does perhaps its most important work in protecting unpopular religious beliefs, vindicating this nation’s long-held aspiration to serve as a refuge of religious tolerance.”
Based on his views on death with dignity, we can speculate he will rule against reproductive rights if given the chance.
The Religion Clause blog has a listing of several other 1st amendment cases Gorsuch participated in on the 10th circuit.
Needless to say all the major freethought groups oppose the nomination.
Not only is Gorsuch a bad pick for secular people, the open seat on the court wasn’t even one President Trump was suppose to fill.