So nominee Gorsuch proclaims Roe v. Wade as precedent

[ScienceRocks]

"Judge Neil Gorsuch said Tuesday the controversial Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is “precedent” and acknowledged the ruling had been reaffirmed “many times.”

Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Justice Antonin Scalia died, does not have much of a history ruling on abortion issues, and the contentious subject was one of the first topics broached during the question-and-answer session of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democrat to question Gorsuch, immediately followed up, citing the importance of the issue since, she said, President Trump “said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe.”

“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,” Gorsuch told Feinstein, clarifying his position on precedent. “What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.”


Feinstein asked if Gorsuch considered Roe v. Wade “super precedent” – a decision that cannot be overturned.

“It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that,” Gorsuch answered."

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Sounds like another resounding defeat for the anti-abortion lobby.

Providing we can believe him...


See what I mean when I say liberalism almost always wins in the long run?

And here the left has been frothing at the mouth, spouting all kinds of inane hatred, and generally making dolts of themselves over this guy.

Hoe does one enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if we won't even protect your right to live?

So you believe I should get medical treatment if something bad happens to me?

 

[yiostheoy]

[

Killing an adult is not abortion. Stay on track. I am for abortion rights as they presently exist, not for random murders of people already born.

Killing a human is killing a human. Dehumanizing the victim by calling them "Juden" or "Fetus" in no way alters what is done.There are times when we kill humans, but those times MUST be rare, and subject to judicial review.

Killing a fetus is not killing a person, constitutionally. The Constitution affords no rights of personhood to the unborn.

Nor to women or Negroes.

It took further amendments to accomplish all that.

Well, pass an amendment then. Good luck with that.

I would like to see an abortion amendment and a gay/lesbo marriage amendment and an euthanasia amendment and a concealed carry amendment and an ACA amendment.

That would then get those issues resolved one way or the other.

 

[yiostheoy]

Draft ACA amendment:

The people shall have access to medical and dental insurance and shall be responsible for 10% of their premiums with the States paying the other 90%.

 

[yiostheoy]

Draft marriage amendment:

The people shall have the right to legally marry anyone whether same sex or opposite sex of the age 18 years or older.

 

[yiostheoy]

Draft CFP amendment:

The People shall have the right to carry concealed loaded firearms and knives on their person without infringement of any kind by the States.

 

[yiostheoy]

Draft euthanasia amendment:

The people shall have access to medically assisted euthanasia in every state.

 

[yiostheoy]

Abortion amendment:

The people shall have access to safe abortion up to the 24th week of pregnancy in States which approve of these procedures. Abortion beyond the 24th week shall be treated as murder and subject to Federal prosecution. The penalty shall be 10 years in Federal prison without parole for each such offense.

 

[Chuz Life]

[

Killing an adult is not abortion. Stay on track. I am for abortion rights as they presently exist, not for random murders of people already born.

Killing a human is killing a human. Dehumanizing the victim by calling them "Juden" or "Fetus" in no way alters what is done.There are times when we kill humans, but those times MUST be rare, and subject to judicial review.

Killing a fetus is not killing a person, constitutionally. The Constitution affords no rights of personhood to the unborn.

The Constitution doesn't fucking "afford" personhood to ANYONE! You included.

A person is legally defined as "a HUMAN being" and any "HUMAN BEING" in any stage of life, growth and development MEETS that legal definition. That is why our Fetal Homicide laws can Constitutionally make the case that killing a "CHILD in the womb" in a criminal act is a CRIME of MURDER.

It will be interesting to see what Gorsuch's opinion will be when we finally get a case before the SCOTUS where the court will have to reconcile the disparity between abortion laws which essentia;;y establish that a child in the womb is NOT to be recognized as a PERSON and our Fetal Homicide laws which establishes that they ARE!

 

[Billo_Really]

This dude is a Scalia in waiting to take a stolen seat. This must be stopped.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why do you loons cheer legislation that allows murdering the most innocent of all? Freaking ghouls

Save the emotional drool for someone else's thread. Your post proves that the anti-abortionists have no rational argument against choice.

And, yes, you LOSE with Gorsuch, especially since he's replacing Scalia.

Oh wow. You call the taking of unborn life a "choice"? And you think Lass is devoid of an argument? The fact you have to take away the humanity of an unborn child in order to have that so-called "choice" means you're the one relying on bunk arguments, not her.

 

[TemplarKormac]

We get it. You are conceding the Gorsuch Confirmation because you spent all your energies and billions on a FAKE RUSSIAN COLLUSION STORY.
Now you are unprepared to stop Gorsuch from taking the bench.

WINNING.

Winning what? You're getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia. WE'RE getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia.

The overturning of Roe v Wade, if we take Gorsuch at his word, is now at least 2 judges away from even being feasible...

...with that, cue the RWnuts who will now come out and claim they never really cared about overturning Roe in the first place.

lol

You won't even acknowledge that Democrats set themselves up for this with their antics in 2013. Leave it to Democrats to sow the seeds of their own demise. You would have been in a far stronger position had you chosen not to invoke the nuclear option that day four years ago.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The pro-birth wing are in fact anti-life.

They will not commit the needs to make sure that life is worth living for every child born in tough circumstances.

So your solution is murder. Charming.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But it was declared a tax

Just because it was "declared" a tax doesn't make it one.

 

[TemplarKormac]

To the OP. Yes, Roe establishes a precedent. All SCOTUS decisions establish precedents. BUT, there is nothing to prevent any congress from passing a more sane abortion law that would render Roe moot.

You mean a Constitutional Amendment. What's keeping you?

Hey, you guys lost all those seats in the past three elections, so what was keeping you? Oh right, your message.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But it was declared a tax

Just because it was "declared" a tax doesn't make it one.

Yes it does. We have laws in this country, maybe you've heard.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Killing an adult is not abortion. Stay on track. I am for abortion rights as they presently exist, not for random murders of people already born.

Killing a human is killing a human. Dehumanizing the victim by calling them "Juden" or "Fetus" in no way alters what is done.There are times when we kill humans, but those times MUST be rare, and subject to judicial review.

Killing a fetus is not killing a person, constitutionally. The Constitution affords no rights of personhood to the unborn.

Nor to women or Negroes.

It took further amendments to accomplish all that.

Yes and the anti-choicers know this. They demand a 'life' amendment in the GOP platform every time it comes up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Judge Neil Gorsuch said Tuesday the controversial Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is “precedent” and acknowledged the ruling had been reaffirmed “many times.”

Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Justice Antonin Scalia died, does not have much of a history ruling on abortion issues, and the contentious subject was one of the first topics broached during the question-and-answer session of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democrat to question Gorsuch, immediately followed up, citing the importance of the issue since, she said, President Trump “said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe.”

“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,” Gorsuch told Feinstein, clarifying his position on precedent. “What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.”


Feinstein asked if Gorsuch considered Roe v. Wade “super precedent” – a decision that cannot be overturned.

“It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that,” Gorsuch answered."

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Sounds like another resounding defeat for the anti-abortion lobby.

Providing we can believe him...


See what I mean when I say liberalism almost always wins in the long run?

I depends on how you define liberalism, and it depends on how you define win. Venezuela isn't really winning. Neither is much of the EU.

France once had the death penalty for women who got illegal abortions. Want to go back to that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Apparently Judge Gorsuch agrees with me, and not you.

Really?

I suspect you have very little grasp of how the law works.

You're suspect alright.

 

[Disir]

"Judge Neil Gorsuch said Tuesday the controversial Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is “precedent” and acknowledged the ruling had been reaffirmed “many times.”

Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Justice Antonin Scalia died, does not have much of a history ruling on abortion issues, and the contentious subject was one of the first topics broached during the question-and-answer session of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democrat to question Gorsuch, immediately followed up, citing the importance of the issue since, she said, President Trump “said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe.”

“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,” Gorsuch told Feinstein, clarifying his position on precedent. “What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.”


Feinstein asked if Gorsuch considered Roe v. Wade “super precedent” – a decision that cannot be overturned.

“It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that,” Gorsuch answered."

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Sounds like another resounding defeat for the anti-abortion lobby.

Providing we can believe him...


See what I mean when I say liberalism almost always wins in the long run?

Gorsuch is not Scalia.
A Supreme Court Nominee Alert to the Dangers of Big Business

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/opinion/sunday/what-gorsuch-has-in-common-with-liberals.html

 

[bodecea]

To the OP. Yes, Roe establishes a precedent. All SCOTUS decisions establish precedents. BUT, there is nothing to prevent any congress from passing a more sane abortion law that would render Roe moot.

You mean a Constitutional Amendment. What's keeping you?

Hey, you guys lost all those seats in the past three elections, so what was keeping you? Oh right, your message.

We don't need a Constitutional Amendment...we've got Roe v. Wade. So I ask again.....a Constitutional Amendment making abortion illegal would override Roe v Wade....what's keeping the RussianW from starting one?