Gardner dodges question about whether he discussed Roe with Gorsuch

(Roe v. Wade? What’s that? – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Sen. Cory Gardner (R).

Asked by a conservative talk-radio host whether U.S. Senators have private discussions with U.S Supreme Court nominees about cases like Roe v. Wade, U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) said Thursday they “absolutely occur,” but Gardner dodged a follow-up question about whether he’d discussed Roe with Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s high court nominee.

Gardner also said on air that he was told by a staffer that Gorsuch had written on Roe v. Wade. But no such opinion appears to exist.

“Did you have that conversation with Judge Gorsuch, ‘Hey, what’s your view of Roe v. Wade?'” asked KNUS 710-AM talk-show host Dan Caplis, when Gardner was on his show Thursday (at 6 min below).

“We had conversations about precedents of the Court,” replied Gardner, dodging the question. “And this is something I’m sure that there will be more attention to paid in the days coming.”

Gardner told Caplis he met with Gorsuch for an hour Wednesday and that a staffer at the meeting told Gardner that Gorsuch had written on Roe v. Wade.

“I think he’s written on it, that that decision is precedent already,” said Gardner on air. “I’d have to get the case. I can’t remember the name of the case that he brought before me. That was brought up by one of the staff that were in the meeting about a case where he has written in regard to Roe v. Wade.

“Does [Gorsuch] consider Roe v. Wade to be settled law, which at this point is not subject to being overturned?” Caplis asked Gardner.

Again, Gardner dodged the question saying, “You know, I’d have to look at the opinion, because I think he’s written [one], and I don’t want to put words in his mouth, when he’s already written on it. So it would probably be best, Dan, if we both read into it a little bit, read the opinion, and see what it said.”

The Colorado Times Recorder found no cases in which Gorsuch wrote an opinion on Roe v. Wade. ThinkProgress reported Jan. 31:

…while Gorsuch has never ruled directly on the viability of Roe v. Wade, he wrote a 2009 book, entitled The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, that is heavy with the kind of political rhetoric opponents of abortion deploy in the battle over reproductive choice. “Human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable,” Gorsuch wrote in his book, adding that “the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

As Ed Whelan, a former law clerk to Justice Scalia who writes frequently on the courts puts it, “Gee, might that principle have any application to abortion?

Gardner was unreachable for comment or to answer the question of why he’d been apparently misinformed on Gorsuch’s past opinions on Roe. Phone calls to his DC office were received with, “I’m sorry, extension 5941 is on the phone.” Recently, Gardner accused “paid protesters” of flooding his phone lines with calls.

Some abortion rights advocates argue that Gorsuch’s view on Roe is less important than his opinions on other legal matters relating to access to abortion.

Though a complete overturn of Roe v. Wade is possible, a conservative court may be more likely to weaken Roe than reverse it completely, according to some analyses published this week.

In an opinion piece yesterday, Jennifer Dalven, of the Reproductive Freedom Project, offered four questions she believes are equally or more important than questions about Roe, including: “Does Gorsuch believe that the government can constitutionally impose laws like mandatory ultrasound and fetal burial requirements for no purpose other than to shame and stigmatize women?” And. “Does Gorsuch believe that the government can constitutionally block women from seeking any care, including birth control and cancer screenings, at Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood also provides abortions?”

18 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. The realistThe realist says:

    I was a big fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers when I was a kid. Not a fan of the Colorado Dodger.

     

  2. Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

    The only good thing Harry Reid accomplished is to pave the way for all of President Trumps selections. The spanking of leftist, Democrats and anarchist continues.

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      The anarchist category would include far right wing radicals like the Bundy clan, Oath Keepers, etc. These militia thug groups also need spanking.

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      Drivel as usual.  What about the substance of the article?  Are you in favor of hyper-partisan activist judges or not?

      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        Talking to me or to Passionate Prune?  

        You do know, of course, that judges gain the label of "hyper partisan activist" only when they disagree with the agenda of the religious right?

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          I thought I directed it to Pearbottom CB.  Nice to see some more conservatives on the site but it would be a bit more interesting if they actually engaged in some kind of rational replies instead of lame insults disguised as witty banter.  Hopefully in time their writing will rise to your level of thoughtful discourse.

      • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

        Are you kidding me. There is nothing of substance on ColoradoPols/ProgressNow.

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          Then you should feel right at home.

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          I was going to make jokes about your lack of substance regarding any post at this site as reflecting a lack of substance between your ears but we both know that you have plenty of substance in an alternative fact kind of way.  It will be interesting to see if you are still around in four years with your verbal smirks and petty insults.  My guess is you don't have the guts to get real with why you think Gardner couldn't answer if he spoke with Gorsuch about legislating a ban on miscarriages from the bench because everyone knows they are just abortions by devious witches.

          • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

            I gave up on Gardner a long time ago. I hope he gets a primary challenge.  Anybody that's a protégé of John McCain should be looked at very suspiciously.

             I'm very supportive of Democrats having abortions.

            • PKolbenschlag says:

              I hear Darryl Glenn might be available. You know Cory did pose with the windmills. You can't have that. 

              • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

                Darryl screwed himself with his staff selection and when he called on Trump to step aside. Other wise Zappy would be complaining about something else.  Maybe within the next three years a competent Republican will step forward to challenge Cory Gardner.

            • Gilpin Guy says:

              Good to hear you have an open mind about family planning Pear but you are still dodging the larger issue of whether it is appropriate for Gardner to be talking with a Supreme Court nominee about issues of settled law and whether you support partisan and activist judges on the Supreme Court.

              • Negev says:

                I will admit to being naive on the subject but wonder why it would be considered inappropriate to discuss settled law with a Supreme Court nominee? Certainly questions of settled law will come up in hearings and any and all concerned should be able to discuss any such issue. What is the problem? 

                Did Gorsuch have a ski shop in Vail back in the day?

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.