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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last
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]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

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]

To: edh

Let’s just go straight to triple dog dare you.


51 posted on 03/20/2017 5:29:53 PM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Democrats hate it when rulings favoring their abuse of the defenseless are overturned, whether it’s Dred Scott, Plessy, or Roe.


52 posted on 03/20/2017 5:33:13 PM PDT by Pollster1 ("Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Didn’t the democrats say the same about slavery


53 posted on 03/20/2017 5:36:10 PM PDT by Godzilla (1/20/2017)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla

.
Can I have that super-sized with whipped cream?
.


54 posted on 03/20/2017 5:37:03 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: TBP

I don’t know...I bet if Goresuch got one of those decoder rings in a jar of Ovaltine he could defeat super precedent. Okay, that and a pair of xray glasses from the back of a comic book.

We’re governed by idiots.


55 posted on 03/20/2017 5:41:30 PM PDT by ameribbean expat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Why have American citizens, especially "pro-life" citizens, seldom probed more deeply into the idealogical reasons why Democrats are absolutely unbending in their commitment to the idea of "destroying" babies in the womb?

Ordinary curiosity should propel us to explore exactly what it is in the "progressive" ideology that demands such an unbending position for the Democrat Party, and, therefore, for every Democrat politician who speaks for the Party.

The Party's "Forward" imagery, as well as its economic positions, which are more oriented to Socialism than to Capitalism and Freedom of Individual Enterprise may provide the clue one needs for examining the Party's hardline position on the Abortion and Contraception question, despite individuals whose religious affiliations would seem to lead individual Party members to a different conclusion.

On FR recently, there was a discussion of the "abortion" question, and the statement was made that "Friedman (Tom) was up in arms that the US would take away funding for abortion as a way for them to have population control. “What does this administration come up full scale against? A family planning technology being extended by the US government and climate change is a complete myth,” he chided.

"He argued that the increase in population coupled with the border wall would lead to a breakdown in the US/Mexico relationship when it came to national security. “Now how are the Mexicans gonna feel about keeping that going when we're building a high wall?"

Finally, right there in black and white, an admission that the bottom line on the Liberal/Progressive/Democrat Party's absolute and unyielding hard line, which they semantically describe by the misnomer of "women's issues" is, in fact, "population control"!!

Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":

Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:

"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove."
EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON

56 posted on 03/20/2017 5:47:29 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda

See my post below.


57 posted on 03/20/2017 5:48:49 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GOPe Means Bend Over Spell Run

Great point made in your #43!


58 posted on 03/20/2017 5:49:59 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Amendment10 said: "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."

From the 14th Amendment: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Are convinced that the arrangements in the segregated South were "separate but equal", with the emphasis on "equal"? It never appeared that way to me.

Also, there's a bit of a problem with defining just exactly who the second class citizens are. Was Obama a black man or a white man? What do you think of the "one drop rule"?

59 posted on 03/20/2017 5:51:30 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: edh

‘Not a “living and breathing” document?


60 posted on 03/20/2017 5:57:23 PM PDT by Does so (USA: Watching Muslims' 2nd US Generation become "Radicalized"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 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