Once A Hypocrite Always A Hypocrite!
The Worn Out Old Slut Can't Help It!
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.
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!"
Seeings how she wasn’t aborted and all.
She doesn’t seem to have any problem when liberal judges decide to legislate from the bench.
Feinstein=Term Limits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go home Granny!!
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.
Once A Hypocrite Always A Hypocrite!
The Worn Out Old Slut Can't Help It!
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.
Feinstein sets a “super precedent” for the idiocy of a senator.
Say it Feinstein, say that abortion is the cornerstone of liberalism. Go ahead, say the words.
That and global warming are sacraments of teh progressive religion.
This is what they fear the most. Evil, evil people.
I really *hate* those guys...
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.
Did the SCOTUS consider Stare Decisis when taking the decision on same sex marriage? Did Feinstein care about Stare Decisis then??
Wait, I thought Feinstein said the Constitution’s a living document. If it is, then how can any decision be unchangeable?
Dred Scott is a super duper precedent.
It’s not just Super; it’s Super Duper [Not]!
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.
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.