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.
Slavery was super precedent for 90 years.
Women not voting was super precdent for 130 years.
Intellectual pinhead, Dianne is.
Bibles/God in public schools was super precedent for 180 years, and 180 years before that.
Schools in this country were established so people could read and understand and follow the Bible, among other things.
or “Triple Dog super precedent”
Please be careful concerning the 14th Amendment’s (14A) equal protection clause (EPC). The EPC is often misinterpreted imo.
More specifically, regardless that state sovereignty-ignoring activist judges have been twisting the EPC to wrongly create new, politically correct rights from the bench, please consider the following.
The states originally did not obligate themselves to respect the rights that they expressly protected with the Bill of Rights, the states requiring only the feds to respect such rights. But when the states ratified 14A, they likewise obligated themselves to respect constitutionally enumerated rights.
But it remains that the states are free to make laws which discriminate on the basis of any criteria that they have not amended the Constitution to expressly protect, EPC requiring the states only to discriminate equally with respect to enforcing discriminatory laws.
For example, the Supreme Court clarified in Minor v. Happersett that the EPC did not automatically give otherwise qualified female citizens the right to vote since the states had never amended the Constitution to expressly protect womens' right to vote up to that time. (Note that Virginia Minor’s effort led to the ratification of the 19th Amendment which effectively gave women the right to vote.)
Again, with respect to state laws that discriminate on basis of constitutionally unprotected criteria, all that 14A’s EPC was intended to do is to make sure that a given state discriminates equally against everybody within its borders with respect to such laws.
For example, noting that I’m not encouraging underage citizens to do so, this is why underage citizens in one state who want to drink alcoholic beverages occasionally visit a state that discriminates to a lesser extent with minimum drinking age.
Like the Dred Scott decision. /s
Wasn’t traditional man-woman marriage ‘settled law’ ?
Feinstein’s logic is illogical.
The length for which a U.S. Supreme Court ruling has stood is a testament to that mere fact alone and not any definite, absolute Constitutional truth. There are arguments that CAN break the arguments that won the Roe v Wade decision. That they have not yet won, or not yet successfully offered does not mean they neither can’t be made nor should be disallowed, just because of how long Roe V Wade has remained in force.
Start with ‘Heller’ decision. The cities are still not cooperating with it.
That was in place longer than Roe has been, yet the court just ran roughshod over it.
And it worries me a bit that Gorsuch said today that gay marriage is settled law.
Yes, the worst effect of the War between the States. But Lincoln was an old Henry Clay Whig, and they were centralizers (and fans of "internal improvement" schemes.)
Democrats can be pretty stupid.
If tehy do filibuster, just invoke Rule 19.
Dred Scott.
Reminiscent of the Chinese one-child policy.
The other handy thing about abortion, from t3eh Dhimmicrap point of view, is that it reduces the minority population.
Yep, we all remember how awesomely that worked out when the Dems were loudly objecting to Judge Souter but the Republicans blindly trusted the President that he would be a "home run for conservatives" because he's a "strict constructionist"
If there's one thing we've learned in the past, is that GOP Supreme Court nominees must be immediately rubber stamped for a lifetime job because they all magically turn out to be excellent judges.
< /sarcasm>
Unlike Souter (whom many of us opposed), Gorsuch has a long record, and it’s excellent.
Gorsuch has a short record on the bench, and its been mixed. He's done some things I like (stood up for religious freedom & against euthanasia) , and plenty of things that give me pause (immigration, abortion, gay rights, etc.) Many of his left-leaning rulings are precisely why leftist slime like the New York Times and Obama's "ethics" czar are praising the pick and urging Senate Dems to confirm him, hoping he will be a stealth leftist (see Why Liberals Should Back Judge Gorsuch by The New York Times ) Like many "stealth nominees", he hasn't handed down any earth shattering decisions on any major precedents. Roberts a similar "unknown" quality, but whose background was far more conservative than Gorsuch.
The evidences suggests if Gorsuch is confirmed, he will vote similarly to Sandra Day O'Connor. For a judge replacing Scalia, that's a HUGE downgrade and would significantly move the court to the left.
Don't say you weren't warned.
History revisionism. Not a single GOP Senator opposed Souter's nomination, and only ONE major conservative organization did (The Conservative Caucus). Just like the Gorsuch nomination, they rallied behind the nomination the instant it was made, blinded trusted the President, and believed that since the judge "judicial philosophy" was marketed as a "strict constructionist", that would ensure he'd vote the right way for the rest of his life.
None of the senators, but many in the movement did. A lot more than you seem to remember.
Howard Phillips and those of us who opposed the nomination villified for doing so. I hate to say this, but we were right. (Just as YAF got attacked when we opposed O’Connor and Ann Coulter got attacked for opposing Roberts. In all three cases, that was the right position.)
O’Connor, Souter, and Roberts had no record. Gorsuch does.
Did anyone seriously believe that those people were “strict constructionists” or “Originalists”? It was clear that the likes of Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were. Gorsuch falls into their category.
Gorsuch has an excellent record. He was considered to be at or near the top of President Trump’s list.
What don’t you like on abortion or immigration?
Judge Gorsuch rules on the the law, and not on his personal views. That’s what Scalia did. He seems to be an originalist, and he has a record to back that up — far more of a record than O’Connor, Souter, or Roberts had. (BTW, I am proud to vhe opposed all three of those nominations.) This is no stealth nominee.
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.