As I've mentioned before, Trump is capable of doing both good and bad. No one is all good or all bad. I just recently supported his decision to fire the Acting AG. I wasn't happy with the childish letter he sent referencing her dismissal, but he was absolutely right to fire her.
I say all that to say I'm not against everything that Trump does, although his past behavior and actions have to be considered when individually weighing any decision he makes.
As many of you know, abortion is the singularly most important issue for me. I believe if you wanted to be sure you were getting a Pro-Life Judge that Pryor was the slam-dunk choice.
A lot of people are saying Hardiman had the possibility of being the next Conservative disappointment, but I don't believe Gorsuch is immune from that even though I think he is a well-qualified pick and was clearly one of the best choices available.
Gorsuch clerked for White and Kennedy. Yes, White was famous for being one of two dissenters in Roe v. Wade, but a major reason for that is he didn't like to see heated social issues decided from the bench. Gorsuch has an essentially identical philosophy. White also was a major believer in the supremacy of stare decis as is Gorsuch, although he has gone against that ONLY as an advisement to his own Circuit to overturn a precedent.
Obviously Kennedy has supported some abortion restrictions while also upholding Roe v. Wade. Gorsuch has published a book on euthanasia in which he said the principle question (and I'm paraphrasing) of Roe v. Wade is whether or not a fetus is recognized as a person. If it is, then Roe v. Wade is not constitutional. If it is not, then Roe is constitutional. Although he does not answer that question, he does make strong arguments that all life should be protected and all intentional killing is wrong.
In summary, it seems Gorsuch believes in upholding precedent unless there is the possibility of a complete change afforded to a circuit court or to SCOTUS. He clerked for Kennedy and White. That would leave you to believe he would support abortion restrictions and/or be very critical of Roe v. Wade. Thus, it seems he would be a good candidate for overturning Roe. However, his belief (like White) that hotbutton social issues should be decided by the voters (or their proxy the legislature) balances that out because of his strong belief in precedence.
Obviously this is all just my opinion, but I'd say if Gorsuch is confirmed, and obviously depending upon the makeup of the court when/if it receives another broad abortion case, I don't actually think he would completely overturn Roe v. Wade. I believe he would support state level restrictions completely. I also think that if Congress passed legislation outlawing abortion he would absolutely uphold the constitutionality of that. Talk about something that would be the mother of all legislative battles, and for that reason I think such sweeping legislation is unlikely. More likely are significant and increased abortion restrictions passed legislatively and eventually decided on by SCOTUS.
Finally, there is the wildcard of Gorsuch being Episcopalian. If abortion was a very clear-cut and important issue to him you'd think he'd be a member of a church that was Pro-Life. The Episcopal church believes abortion should only be reserved for extreme cases, but that it should not be infringed upon by any type of statutory limits.
So, I don't believe anyone can say for certainty that Gorsuch would 100% overturn Roe v. Wade. Some of you may say you could say that about anyone, but although I'm not a huge fan of Pryor's decisions or actions elsewhere, there is zero doubt he would absolutely vote to overturn Roe.
I think Gorsuch would be a reliable Conservative on the bench as he is a textualist (which I am not personally a huge supporter of), but I doubt he would be to the level of Scalia or Thomas. I think he would be somewhat close, but still a notch below.
No one ever knows how this stuff will turn out...see Sandra Day O'Connor, Souter, and Kennedy for reference. Gorsuch is a great choice, but I do believe pragmatics were at play here. Trump did not want to risk losing a confirmation hearing. Gorsuch is Conservative enough that Republicans will fight like hell to get him confirmed, and the entire Conservative movement will be behind them. It will bring a ton of unity that Trump desperately needs right now due to his first week of serious missteps.
But do not be fooled. Gorsuch is not a slam-dunk to overrule Roe. Pryor was, abs and Mike Lee would have been as well, but that was never more than a pipedream. Trump likes to make deals where he can. He needs Republicans back on his side. I believe that's why he chose Gorsuch over Hardiman. I also believe he was advised that Gorsuch would be much easier to confirm than Pryor. I don't believe abortion was Trump's primary consideration. I just don't. Trump's Pro-Life conversion is still recent, and there's quite a bit of doubt about whether or not it is truly legitimate or due to political expediency.
