Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Feinstein tells SCOTUS nominee: Roe v. Wade is a ‘super precedent’ that can’t be changed
The Blaze ^ | March 20, 2017 | Kate Scanlon

Posted on 03/20/2017 2:56:02 PM PDT by TBP

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said Monday during the confirmation hearing for Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, that Roe v. Wade is now a “super precedent” that cannot be changed.

Feinstein argued that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide, is “settled law” and could not be overturned by the Supreme Court in the future.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld Roe’s court finding, making it settled law for the last 44 years,” she said, citing 14 cases where the high court upheld the “core holding” of Roe and 39 decisions that have “reaffirmed” Roe.

“If these judgments when combined do not constitute super precedent, I don’t know what does,” she said. The doctrine of stare decisis is one in which courts adhere to previous rulings. The notion of “super stare decisis” or “super precedent” suggests that some cases are immune to being overturned.

The California Democrat also argued that the Supreme Court “has the final say over whether a woman will continue to have control over her own body.”

She objected to Gorsuch’s written position that “the intentional taking of a human life by private persons is always wrong.” Feinstein claimed that Gorsuch’s “language has been interpreted by both pro-life and pro-choice organizations to mean he would overturn Roe.”

Gorsuch has never ruled on abortion, although pro-life groups point to his decisions on religious liberty cases as evidence he will support their cause. Pro-choice groups have condemned Gorsuch’s conservative record.

Gorsuch was nominated by President Donald Trump to fill the vacancy left on the Supreme Court by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia early last year.


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: 115th; evil; feinstein; gorsuch; proaborts; roevwade; supremecourt; trumpscotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last
Plessy v. Ferguson, which we all consider wrong, stood from 1896 to 1954 -- longer then Roe v. Wade has stood.

Plessy said that "separate but equal" was constitutional. We all know that it meant second-class citizenship for blacks. Previously, the Supreme Court had ruled that blacks couldn't even be citizens.

Roe v. Wade puts the preborn in a position where they cannot even aspire to second-class citizenship. It enshrines a practice aimed particularly at the same minorities harmed by Dred Scott and Plessy.

Needless to say, progressives find it inviolable. (Well, of course they do.) Feinstein's remarks tell us all we need to know about her and her party.

All the more reason we MUST get Gorsuch on the Court ASAP.

1 posted on 03/20/2017 2:56:02 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TBP

Using this idiot’s logic, we can make any new interpretation of the case “double super precedent” ... That’ll make it iron clad and supersede any wimpy “super” precedent.


2 posted on 03/20/2017 2:58:27 PM PDT by edh (I need a better tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Great point.

never understood why killing an American is somehow protected by the Constitution.

3 posted on 03/20/2017 2:59:20 PM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is EVIL and needs to be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Feinstein and her pals agree. Nothing could be more important than killing babies. “ Listen, baby: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for me, but not for thee.”


4 posted on 03/20/2017 2:59:34 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edh

Actually, make that “double super precedent, no take backs” ... That’ll make it iron clad.


5 posted on 03/20/2017 2:59:50 PM PDT by edh (I need a better tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: edh
we can make any new interpretation of the case “double super precedent”

With a cherry on top!!!

6 posted on 03/20/2017 3:00:26 PM PDT by TBP (0bama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Dred Scott v. Sandford was once settled law.
7 posted on 03/20/2017 3:00:30 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Nothing must interrupt their child sacrifices to the god of death!


8 posted on 03/20/2017 3:00:51 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Yes, and so was Plessy. Exactly my point.

I believe both stood longer than Roe has stood as of today. So I guess they couldn’t be overturned.


9 posted on 03/20/2017 3:02:02 PM PDT by TBP (0bama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Why are leftists so incredibly hellbent on abortions as if it’s some kind of medical procedure women go through once a month? First off, besides the fact that they are killing a baby, having an abortion is not the healthiest thing for the uterus and WHY THE HELL does the public have to finance this insanity because some asshat is irresponsible?


10 posted on 03/20/2017 3:03:57 PM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Hillary Clinton IS a felon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Super precedent,Ms. Fi? You made that up, didn’ ya?


11 posted on 03/20/2017 3:05:28 PM PDT by Buttons12 ( rent this space)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

If overturned will it result in double secret probation?


12 posted on 03/20/2017 3:05:40 PM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

“Nothing could be more important than killing babies.”

Since abortions are disproportionally black babies doesn’t that make her racist?


13 posted on 03/20/2017 3:06:32 PM PDT by alternatives? (Why have an army if there are no borders?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TBP

It’s a majority opinion of a bunch of lawyers.


14 posted on 03/20/2017 3:07:35 PM PDT by chris37 (Donald J. Trump, Tom Brady, The Patriots... American Destiny!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Feinstein, whose party was responsible for and defended the Dred Scott decision.


15 posted on 03/20/2017 3:08:33 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

So is Citizens United.


16 posted on 03/20/2017 3:08:59 PM PDT by NotSoFreeStater (If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buttons12

It’s a bird. It’s a plane. It’s Supreprecedent!


17 posted on 03/20/2017 3:09:13 PM PDT by TBP (0bama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Still does, implicitly.


18 posted on 03/20/2017 3:09:44 PM PDT by TBP (0bama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

The “Living Breathing Document” argument she made kind of ... negates this point, doesn’t it?

If it’s a LBD then the court can be overruled as well, right? Fein swine is a MORON.


19 posted on 03/20/2017 3:11:54 PM PDT by Big Giant Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: edh

Very funny, EDH!


20 posted on 03/20/2017 3:11:59 PM PDT by karnage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TBP
ABORTION: "Settled law! Set in stone! It's right there in the Constitution, next to the right to sodomy and gay marriage law!"

2nd AMENDMENT: "Oh no, we can't have that ja dere hey there. That's a misunderstanding by the Founders. They meant "Bear Arms" on the wall! You can't own a gun me lad!"

21 posted on 03/20/2017 3:13:27 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Man-made global liberalism is killing the planet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Seeings how she wasn’t aborted and all.


22 posted on 03/20/2017 3:14:45 PM PDT by SkyDancer (Ambition Without Talent Is Sad, Talent Without Ambition Is Worse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

She doesn’t seem to have any problem when liberal judges decide to legislate from the bench.


23 posted on 03/20/2017 3:15:29 PM PDT by mass55th (Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway...John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Feinstein=Term Limits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go home Granny!!


24 posted on 03/20/2017 3:17:48 PM PDT by Batman11 ( The USA is not an ATM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda
Why are leftists so incredibly hellbent on abortions as if it’s some kind of medical procedure women go through once a month?

I have a feeling that if we ever fully find out exactly what has been happening to aborted baby parts, the Establishment may find themselves facing a lynch mob.

25 posted on 03/20/2017 3:18:18 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Big government is attractive to those who think that THEY will be in control of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Once A Hypocrite Always A Hypocrite!
The Worn Out Old Slut Can't Help It!


26 posted on 03/20/2017 3:19:08 PM PDT by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Roe v Wade contains restrictions on abortion.

If the Federal government has restrictions on abortion then where then the line can be changed and altered by the Federal government. Once you’ve acquiesced to Federal control (as pro-choice people have done) then you cannot then call it settled law, because laws can, and often do, change.

They lost this battle back in 1973 by actively seeking Federal courts get involved.


27 posted on 03/20/2017 3:20:11 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP





28 posted on 03/20/2017 3:20:49 PM PDT by onyx (Donate Monthly ~ Join 300 Club!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Feinstein sets a “super precedent” for the idiocy of a senator.


29 posted on 03/20/2017 3:21:23 PM PDT by Carthego delenda est
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Say it Feinstein, say that abortion is the cornerstone of liberalism. Go ahead, say the words.


30 posted on 03/20/2017 3:21:27 PM PDT by HandyDandy ("I reckon so. I guess we all died a little in that damn war.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HandyDandy

That and global warming are sacraments of teh progressive religion.


31 posted on 03/20/2017 3:22:47 PM PDT by TBP (0bama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TBP

This is what they fear the most. Evil, evil people.


32 posted on 03/20/2017 3:28:51 PM PDT by Trillian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
"If overturned will it result in double secret probation?"

I really *hate* those guys...

33 posted on 03/20/2017 3:36:00 PM PDT by PLMerite (Lord, let me die fighting lions. Amen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TBP

I think the Dred Scott ruling was in place for just over two decades, not that it matters.

There’s no damn such thing as a ‘super-precedent,’ even if a wretched super-murderess like Feinstein says so.

What a reeking tribute to dead flesh she is.


34 posted on 03/20/2017 3:40:12 PM PDT by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Someone else agrees with her:

35 posted on 03/20/2017 3:43:44 PM PDT by ReaganGeneration2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Did the SCOTUS consider Stare Decisis when taking the decision on same sex marriage? Did Feinstein care about Stare Decisis then??


36 posted on 03/20/2017 3:45:32 PM PDT by originalbuckeye ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Wait, I thought Feinstein said the Constitution’s a living document. If it is, then how can any decision be unchangeable?


37 posted on 03/20/2017 3:49:53 PM PDT by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Dred Scott is a super duper precedent.


38 posted on 03/20/2017 3:55:07 PM PDT by Organic Panic (Flinging poo is not a valid argument)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

It’s not just Super; it’s Super Duper [Not]!


39 posted on 03/20/2017 4:06:29 PM PDT by YogicCowboy ("I am not entirely on anyone's side, because no one is entirely on mine." - JRRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP; All
"Plessy v. Ferguson, which we all consider wrong, ..."

While I agree that the Court’s decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was wrong in principle, it was constitutionally technically correct imo, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly prohibit segregation.

In other words, the 13th Amendment, or another Reconstruction amendment, arguably should have had an express, anti-segregation clause imo.

Sadly, the fact that Reconstruction amendments didn't expressly prohibit segregation didn’t stop state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices from politically amending anti-segregation policy to the Constitution from the bench.

As a side note, are patriots aware of talk that the Civil War was arguably a symbolic contest of power between the federal government, represented by the Union States, versus the states, the states represented by the Confederate States, the 10th Amendment slowly politically fading from the Constitution after the Union States won the Civil War?

Corrections, insights welcome.

40 posted on 03/20/2017 4:09:14 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Charles Krauthammer says no filibuster for Gorsuch - “too stupid, even for Democrats”......


41 posted on 03/20/2017 4:11:25 PM PDT by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

When did the court rule that blacks couldn’t be citizens?


42 posted on 03/20/2017 4:11:33 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edh

So per the old hag, the Constitution is not a living breathing document anymore regarding the killing of baby in the womb.


43 posted on 03/20/2017 4:12:44 PM PDT by GOPe Means Bend Over Spell Run (GO GALT - VOTE TRUMP!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Feinstein tells SCOTUS nominee: Roe v. Wade is a ‘super precedent’ that can’t be changed

The senile hag has abused her position for so long she actually believes the Constitution has a special section empowering her to define legal concepts and precedents on a whim.

Sorry you sad sack of ****, you lose.

Isn't it time for you to retire? Gracefully if possible, but kicking and screaming, if necessary...

44 posted on 03/20/2017 4:14:02 PM PDT by publius911 (I SUPPORT MY PRESIDENT?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Five armed bodyguards, huh?

With silencers maybe? On their weapons?

45 posted on 03/20/2017 4:20:27 PM PDT by publius911 (I SUPPORT MY PRESIDENT?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Dred Scott was once settled law


46 posted on 03/20/2017 4:23:33 PM PDT by silverleaf (Age takes a toll: Please have exact change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Why wasn’t Lochner vs. NY an ironclad precedent? Because it stood in the way of Social(ist) Justice?


47 posted on 03/20/2017 4:38:13 PM PDT by oblomov (We have passed the point where "law," properly speaking, has any further application. - C. Thomas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fiddlstix

She’s the real idol of CA! Forget the young actresses. DiFi has it all!


48 posted on 03/20/2017 5:08:24 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Let's not squander the golden opportunity of 2017.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TBP

-—Roe v. Wade is a ‘super precedent’ that can’t be changed-—

Sorta like “only men can be senators”, eh Senator Crazy Dingbat?


49 posted on 03/20/2017 5:17:38 PM PDT by Oscar in Batangas (12:01 PM 1/20/2017,,,The end of an error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edh

...“double super precedent” ... That’ll make it iron clad and supersede any wimpy “super” precedent...

Make that a double secret super precedent.


50 posted on 03/20/2017 5:28:46 PM PDT by Sasparilla ( I'm Not tired of Winning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson