Trump Chooses Episcopalian Neil Gorsuch as U.S. Supreme Court Nominee

President Trump has announced that he has nominated 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court as the replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline and has earned bipartisan support,” Trump stated in introducing his pick to the public Tuesday night.

“Mr. President, I am honored and I am humbled. Thank you very much,” Gorsuch, an Episcopalian, said to applause in accepting the nomination.

Gorsuch, now 49, had been nominated to the 10th Circuit in 2006 by then-President George W. Bush. He was a graduate of Harvard Law School and has a PhD. from Oxford. He served as a clerk under current Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Gorsuch is known for ruling in favor of the popular craft chain Hobby Lobby, which had sued the Obama administration over its abortion pill mandate. The company had sued to retain the right not to cover contraceptives that it considers to be abortifacients, such as the morning-after pill. Gorsuch pointed to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act in his ruling.

“It is not for secular courts to rewrite the religious complaint of a faithful adherent, or to decide whether a religious teaching about complicity imposes ‘too much’ moral disapproval on those only ‘indirectly’ assisting wrongful conduct,” he wrote in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. “Whether an act of complicity is or isn’t ‘too attenuated’ from the underlying wrong is sometimes itself a matter of faith we must respect.”

Gorsuch was likewise a part of a ruling in favor of the Roman Catholic Little Sisters of the Poor, which had also sued the Obama administration over the abortion pill mandate.

  • Connect with Christian News

While it is not known where Gorsuch himself stands on abortion, he is the author of the book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” in which he concludes that “human life is intrinsically valuable and that intentional killing is always wrong.”

However, some have questioned whether or not Gorsuch would seek to end abortion if the matter came before him on the bench. Andy Schlafly, an attorney and the son of the late Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum—who had supported Trump prior to her death—recently stated that Gorsuch “has never said or written anything pro-life.” He also said that Gorsuch is a “big supporter [of] granting special rights to men who say they have a female … identity.”

But Ed Whelan, who disagrees with both of Schlafly’s assertions, notes for the National Review that Gorsuch had dissented from the majority opinion when his colleagues ruled in Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert that that state of Utah could not defund the abortion giant Planned Parenthood.

“Respectfully, the panel in this case not only conducted its own de novo review of the record, it relaxed PPAU’s burden of proof and even seemed to reverse it,” Gorsuch wrote.

“Respectfully, this case warrants rehearing,” he opined. “As it stands, the panel opinion leaves litigants in preliminary injunction disputes reason to worry that this court will sometimes deny deference to district court factual findings; relax the burden of proof by favoring attenuated causal claims our precedent disfavors; and invoke
arguments for reversal untested by the parties, unsupported by the record, and inconsistent with principles of comity.”

Gorsuch has also seemed to indicate that he believes the government should be permitted to erect religious displays on public property, disagreeing with his colleagues who rejected a rehearing in the 2007 case of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, which involved a Ten Commandments display.

Gorsuch is stated by others as being much like Scalia, including being an “originalist,” that is, seeking to interpret the Constitution in the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers. He cited the high court justice in his acceptance speech as Scalia’s wife sat in the audience.

In an article for the Case Western Reserve Law Review, Gorsuch recalled being overcome with sorrow upon hearing of Scalia’s death. He had been taking a skiing trip when his phone rang with the news.

“I immediately lost what breath I had left, and I am not embarrassed to admit that I couldn’t see the rest of the way down the mountain for the tears,” Gorsuch wrote.

He praised Scalia as being a “lion of the law.”

“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,” Gorsuch stated. “Volumes rightly will be written about his contributions to American law, on the bench and off.”

As previously reported, Trump had outlined even before the election that he intended on appointing a Supreme Court justice like the late Antonin Scalia.

“I will strike down Roe v. Wade, but I will also strike down a law that is the opposite of Roe v. Wade,” Scalia outlined in a 2002 Pew Forum. “You know, both sides in that debate want the Supreme Court to decide the matter for them. One [side] wants no state to be able to prohibit abortion and the other one wants every state to have to prohibit abortion, and they’re both wrong.”

“And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the equal protection clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that’s wrong,” Scalia further explained in a 2008 “60 Minutes” interview. “I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons.”

He also noted that religion has very little to do with his decisions.

“I try mightily to prevent my religious views or my political views or my philosophical views from affecting my interpretation of the laws, which is what my job is about,” he stated. “They can make me leave the bench if I find that I’m enmeshed in an immoral operation, but the only one of my religious views that has anything to do with my job as a judge is the seventh commandment—thou shalt not lie. I try to observe that faithfully, but other than that I don’t think any of my religious views have anything to do with how I do my job as a judge.”

As previously reported, Trump originally had 21 judges on his Supreme Court list, with Judges William Pryor, Thomas Hardiman and Gorsuch stated to be on his shortlist. Pryor was especially controversial as he had prosecuted “Ten Commandments Judge” Roy Moore and had vowed to uphold Roe v. Wade while serving in the 11th Circuit.

Diane Sykes, likewise on the list, was also controversial as she had written in a Planned Parenthood ruling that abortion is a woman’s “right.”

Trump advisor Leonard Leo is stated to have helped the president with narrowing down the list and making a selection.

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Robert

    EPISCAPALIAN ?. Well that’s ok depends can come to the rescue of that religious disorder of the kidmeys.

    • John

      Here’s a list of ways in which Episcopalians differ from non-believers:


      • Jenny Ondioline

        Go on?

        • Lexical Cannibal

          Go…? Oh, yes, here, maybe I can help:


          • Jenny Ondioline

            Oh, I thought you were going to say something, but you were just bearing false witness against Episcopalians. Carry on.

          • Lexical Cannibal

            What? Oh, no, I don’t really care either way about Episcopalians. I mean, they’re alright, I guess, they’re just not really on my radar. I thought you didn’t get the joke. That was my bad.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            My bad, too, I thought you were John, the original poster, which is why you got a huge shot of sarcasm. Sorry.

        • John

          They are not Christians.
          Christian accept the New Testament as the foundation of ethical teaching. Episcopalians do not. In fact, they directly oppose it. They celebrate homosexuality, and they even claim that people who follow the New Testament teaching on sexuality to be homophobes and not Christians. They celebrate access to abortion. In numerous polls, most Episcopalians do not believe in an afterlife. Some do not even believe in God. In fact, their predominantly white churches are not fellowships of Christians, they are Sunday morning clubs for white liberals, mostly homosexuals.

          But the good news is: They’re on the verge of extinction, because their non-Christian religion is losing members by the thousands. This is good. By 2030 or so, they won’t even exist.

          • RWH

            Is all of this information from a reliable, neutral, informed source, or is it just your personal opinion?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            That is called the No True Scotsman fallacy.

            What you have done is listed a bunch of things they do that you don’t like (but which do NOT, in any sense, preclude them from being Christians). The No True Scotsman fallacy is most often invoked by those Christians known variously as evangelicals, “fundies” or fundamentalists.

          • Oboehner

            A direct contradiction to Christian principles would qualify as being non-Christian.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            It would. Depending on the person defining “Christian principles”.

          • Oboehner

            That wouldn’t be you as you have shown to be clueless in that.

          • John

            You atheist trolls are a joke. Seriously, you think a Christian is going to get upset because someone of your ilk calls us “fundies”? It’s the equivalent of a compliment from someone of good character.

            Get over yourselves. There are no Christians who want your approval.

            Enjoy your hate. Looks like that’s all you’ve got.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You sit there with a straight face and tell a Christian group they aren’t really Christians, and somehow I am the one with the hate?

          • Ken Faivor

            I think you answered your own question when you said:

            “most Episcopalians” and “Some do not”

            You will not go to hell for going to an Episcopalian church. God will look at us individually. And if they study their Bibles, they will eventually leave a church that is not Biblically sound.

      • Emmanuel

        John, I am laughing but come on dude, if they believe that Christ died for our sins, we are on the same team.
        They are better than Trump, he believes deeds get him to heaven.

        • John

          I gather you do not know much about Episcopalians.

          They ordain homosexuals and claim that homosexuality is not a sin. They support abortion. In fact, they even conduct “Christian” rituals thanking God for abortion providers.

          They do not believe Christ died for our sins. In fact, the only sin they recognize is homophobia.

          The New Testament is very clear that calling oneself “Christian” does not make it so. Hell will be full of people who claimed (falsely) to be Christians.

          • Emmanuel

            If what you say is true, then they are not that far from non believers.
            i still laugh when I read your post, instant classic

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Since you seem to be having difficulty with this (fairly simple) task, let me help you. Episcopalians:

        1. Believe in God
        2. Go to church
        3. Believe Jesus is their savior
        4. Receive sacraments

        • John

          If they believed in God, they would accept the ethical teaching revealed in the Bible.

          Obviously they do not. They condone and even celebrate homosexuality and insist it is NOT a sin.

          Going to church does not save people. Neither do the sacraments. Saying “I’m a Christian” does not make it so. When you reject the clear ethical teaching of the Bible, which has stood for 2000 years, you are not a Christian.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, but the topic is what the difference between atheists and Episcopalians is. And I just told you.

          • John

            Wonderful, here’s a cookie.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay then, I accept your apology for conflating atheists with Episcopalians.

  • Robert

    You have to talk to the individual of any church body to know what they personaly believe. A person would be surprised that a staunch Supporter of the whole bible as God’s undeniable truth could come from church bodies that are very liberal yet it happens very often.
    Liberal church bodies have churchs among them that are very conservative because their pastors have been.

    • Dcgorillafighter

      I’m also an Episcopalian and a Trumpublican. I attended Georgetown Prep, a Catholic Jesuit Prep school with Neil. I remember a very smart, studious teen who was a debate Champion and President of our Student council. He did not wear his religion on his sleeve but most 14 -18 year old boys are thinking about other things than the church.

  • Robert

    Yes glad you deleted comment it wasn’t that funny.if it was more funny I would complain.

  • Emmanuel

    Let’s move forward and see how he does. Will he reverse Roe and the gay marriage law, let’s wait and find out. The last christian judge approved Obamacare so…………..

  • Blessings or Curses from the ONLY ONE Who Matters?

    “It’s amazing how pride can conspire to blind us. Take the nomination of Neil Gorsuch for example.

    “Conservatives invested a lot in their support of Trump so they have a lot of incentive to see Trump’s choice as great. We want to see Mr. Gorsuch as Christian and conservative whether he is or isn’t. Conservative media have exclusively portrayed Mr. Gorsuch as very conservative.

    “Liberals invested a lot in their opposition so they are saying the same thing. They are screaming Mr. Gorsuch is an extreme conservative to drum up opposition on their side.

    “Neither side wants to admit any possibility they could have been wrong. Because of that there are a few facts neither side will tell you:

    “Mr. Gorsuch attends St. John’s Episcopal Church of Boulder, CO. This is one of the most liberal churches in the nation. Parishioner’s from Mr. Gorsuch’s church sponsored the recent “Women’s March” in Boulder. Mr. Gorsuch’s pastor, Susan Springer, attended that march and spoke about it glowingly in her weekly church blog. The church’s official position on abortion is that it is a woman’s right and should be defended. They also support homosexuality as a perfectly Christian option.

    “Mr. Gorsuch is being portrayed as anti-abortion based solely on a book where he opposed euthanasia. But in Pino v. U.S., 507 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2007), Judge Gorsuch argued a “non-viable fetus” does not possess the same rights as a “viable fetus”.

    “He is also being portrayed as anti-gay. But in 2009, Judge Gorsuch was one of the earliest to decide federal law prohibits discrimination based on gender identity. (Kastl v. Maricopa County Cmty. College Dist., 325 Fed. Appx. 492 (9th Cir. 2009)….” (John Wickey)

    This nomination would never occur under a biblical government:

    “…The Bible stipulates, among other things, that judicial appointees must be men of truth who fear Yahweh and hate covetousness. (See Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” for a list of additional Biblical qualifications.) The United States Constitution requires no Biblical qualifications whatsoever [made all-but impossible by Article 6’s Christian test ban]. Nowhere does the Constitution stipulate that judges must rule on behalf of Yahweh, rendering decisions based upon His commandments, statutes, and judgments as required in Exodus 18. That not even one constitutional framer contended for Yahweh,3 as did King Jehoshaphat, speaks volumes about the framers’ disregard for Him and His judicial system:

    ‘And he [King Jehoshaphat] set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for YHWH,4 who is with you in the judgment…. And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of YHWH, faithfully, and with a perfect heart.’ (2 Chronicles 19:5-9)….”

    For more, see online Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 6.

  • Somebody In Texas

    There is a Documentary on TV called (The Russian Revolution in Color) As I watch it I can see that Soros and Rockefeller and Rothschilds are playing the Same Role as Lenin did in the Early 20th Century.

    They Lost the Election to Trump and since they have No Immediate Path to Power then Soros and the GLOBASLISTS will try to Take this Nation Down just like Lenin took Russia down in the Early 20th Century. Get a Copy of (The Russian Revolution in Color) and you will see the Exact Template that George Soros is using to Take the USA into a Globalist Communist Revolution.

    A person needs to Know his Enemy to be able to Defeat his Enemy. And right now Soros and the College Campuses are doing very well to Take Our US Nation Down.

    George Soros needs to be Take Down ASAP or else Soros will take America Down.