JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,520
In la la land, perhpas.You are missing three things:"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?
Sweet Baby Jesus--this has got to be pissing off the Reich wing Evangelical section of the Party who have always insisted that their chozen candidates campaign on overturning Roe V Wade--LOL They believed that Trump would nominate a judge that would do just that, and would overturn Gay marraige at the same time. Many of them are single issue voters, and their single issue was Roe V Wade.
They were scared to death who Hillary Clinton would have nominated to be a SCOTUS. Well it turns out that Hillary Clinton, Diane Fienstein, Chuck Schumer & Barack Obama voted for Gorsuch to be a district court judge under G.W. Bush in 2006
Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006
![]()
Democrats should have no problems at all with confirming Gorsuch.
Roe V Wade is here to stay.
from a practical standpoint, Roe is probably here to stay. But nothing prevents a future congress and president from passing law that would limit its application or allow each state to decide.
The idea that any law is here "forever" is naïve.
No Roe v Wade is here to stay. The U.S. Supreme court is the law of the land, and they are there to protect the individual's rights.
While we have a lot of IDIOT Republican governors that will sign off on sonogram requirements etc. they are always overturned by a Federal District court judge.
Example: Mike Pence who wasted Indiana's taxpayer dollars signing an abortion bill into law, which put the taxpayers of that state at risk for class action law suits, then they paid out money to defend his bill in court and it was immediately slapped down by a Federal District Court one year later. Here we have Mike Pence putting the taxpayers of his state at risk, over his "personal" religious beliefs. A governor's primary responsibilty is to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars and refuse to sign these kind of bills that put his constituents AT RISK.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us/federal-judge-blocks-indiana-abortion-law.html?_r=0
One woman Republican Governor in Oklahoma refused to sign off on an state abortion bill because she understood the risk.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/us/oklahoma-governor-mary-fallin-vetoes-abortion-bill.html
In fact a Bush 1 appointee, a Federal District Court judge in Texas was interviewed--and stated he is tired of all these abortion bills that he is having to constantly overrule. When he was asked why do you suppose you get so many of them--he stated: Because most Republican state legilators are men, and they really have no business meddling into women's issues.
1 - abortion is not enumerated as an individual right anywhere in the Constitution.
2 - Roe V. Wade was/is bad law.
3 - States have rights according to the 10th Amendment.