[zencycler]

“cautioned Trump against selecting any nominee with a publicly stated position on overturning court precedents such as Roe v. Wade.”

..........................................

Are there any SCOTUS nominees out there who have such a position? Sure, many are pro-life, and many think Roe was wrongly decided - but if they still see stare decisis as a substantial, or even a potential, impediment to having Roe overturned, then they’re not disqualified even if that criterium is applied, as stated.

Have I missed something? All nominees I’ve ever seen testify are very cagey about making any public pronouncements on how they’d rule on any hypothetical case, and I’ve never heard about any nominee publicly saying Roe should be overturned. Does such a potential SCOTUS pick exist? Are there any like that on Trump’s list?

Oh, and changing subjects slightly, here’s a great trolling opportunity for Trump ... I’d love it if he said - I promise to appoint justices who have as much respect for court precedents like Roe as Democrats do for court precedents like Citizens United.

[KavMan]

Maybe it's a good idea we get it done after midterms, it will drive Republican turnout, there is no chance we won't be in the majority & we'll also let all the NO GOPers that they are doomed in their reelection bid!

[Equine1952]

And the Second Amendment.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I predict “stare decisis” will be the most popular phrase among Dems at confirmation hearings.