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
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]


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