Posted on 09/06/2018 1:41:02 PM PDT by Morgana
A new document has been released showing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is possibly open to overturning the infamous Roe v Wade decision that allows virtually unlimited abortions up to birth.
The document is an email during Kavanaugh’s time working in the White House during his tenure as a staffer for President George W Bush. The document shows Kavanaugh questioning whether or not Roe is truly “settled law” and indicating that the Supreme Court can overturn precedent, even the 1973 president established in the Roe v Wade case allowing abortion on demand.
As AP reports:
Kavanaugh’s 2003 comments came as he was reviewing an op-ed article in support of two judicial nominees while he was working at the George W. Bush White House, according to the document.
“I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so,” he wrote, referring to justices at the time, in an email to a Republican Senate aide. The document is partially redacted.
During the first day of questioning, Judge Brett Kavanaugh refused to say that there is a so-called right to abortion. He declined to take the bait from pro-abortion Senator Dianne Feinstein who wants to get him to commit to upholding Roe v Wade once he is confirmed to the Supreme Court.
The pro-abortion California Senator asked Judge Kavanaugh whether or not he thought there was a right to abortion and whether or not Roe v Wade was “correctly decided.” Kavanaugh declined to agree with either of those claims.
Instead, Cavanaugh did with many previous Supreme Court nominees have done — and that is to simply say that Roe v Wade and the subsequent decision Planned Parenthood vs Casey are Supreme Court decisions that are precedent and entitled to respect. But that doesn’t mean those decisions can’t ever be overturned, as the Supreme Court has already overturned one abortion precedent when it comes to banning partial birth abortions. The high court initially overturned a Nebraska law banning partial birth abortions and then years later upheld a congressional ban on the gruesome abortion procedure.
Kavanaugh would not say whether he believed that women had a right to abortion, stressing instead that Casey created a “precedent on precedent.”
“I will tell you what my view now is: It is an important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times,” Kavanaugh said.
Kavanaugh also said that he “understood the issue” of abortion and how intense the debate is surrounding it.
SIGN THE PETITION: Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh
“I understand your point of view and I understand how passionate and how deeply people feel about this issue,” Kavanaugh said. “I understand the importance of this issue … I don’t live in a bubble. I live in the real world. I understand the importance of the issue.”
After the questioning, Feinstein indicated she was upset that Kavanaugh refused to pledge his loyalty to unlimited abortion.
Kavanaugh also refused a pro-abortion senator’s request to promise to never overturn Roe v Wade, the high court case allowing abortions up to birth.
During questioning from pro-abortion Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Kavanaugh again — for the second time today — talked about his ruling in a case where he refused to require the Trump Administration to facilitate an abortion for an illegal immigrant. Senator Blumenthal used the decision and language from it to make his case that Judge Kavanaugh is prepared to overturn Roe once he has been confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Senator Blumenthal said that language in the decision calling abortion “abortion on demand” prejudices Kavanagh and makes it appear he is inclined to reverse the high court ruling allowing virtually unlimited abortions.
“I’m not familiar with the code word,” Kavanaugh said.
Blumenthal also said that Kavanaugh’s claim that Roe is “existing precedent” makes it look like he believe there is a time where Roe can be overturned and will no longer be the legal precedent on abortion.
After making those accusations, Senator Blumenthal asked Kavanaugh to promise never to overturn Roe v Wade. Kavanaugh of course refused to do so and said that every current member of the Supreme Court has refused to comment on where they would stand on a given case that might go to the Supreme Court at some point in the future.
This has been out there. Sounds like he’s just stating fact. There have been several questions to him where the majority opinion went against precedent law, and HE took the side of precedent.
I don’t see where he’s saying either way on how he’d vote.
They should talk about how Brown v Board of Education undid legal segregation, which Plessy v Ferguson called constitutional.
Remember.....the precedent for almost 175 years was that abortion was a crime.
And? He’s right - the Supreme Court declared slavery settled law then overturned their own precedent and that had the backing of the constitution.
From a legal standpoint abortion and gay marriage don’t even have legal backing and were decided on a whim and flimsy rationale.
And don’t even get me started on prohibition.
This is just muckracking and the Democrats doing what they do best - instilling fear ito their sheep populace to get them to vote as demanded.
They are trying to nail him for just stating a fact. He’s on the record for saying he considers Roe settled law. But it is a fact the Supreme Court can reverse a previous decision. Those two statements are not inconsistent. Getting Roe back to the SC would be a monumental effort and it would require a new argument from a new angle.
But of course, liberal-heads-exploding.
Just wait until Judge Ginsburg needs replacement. It will be the end of the world.
How dare he!
What’s next? Overturning the Dred Scott decision?
Doesn’t Kavanaugh understand penumbras?
He keeps looking better.
The 2002 information does not say what it claims. He did not “question” it, he said there was a question about whether other jurists felt it was settled, and whether the current supreme court felt it was settled.
He doesn’t actually say how HE thinks about it.
Like most of the stuff coming out, we learn that Brett was very good in his professional e-mails to be professional, to deal with issues without personal bias, making it extremely hard to hit him without some serious mis-characterizations.
This baby killing is about to stop. Babies have civil rights
Sorry, lefties, but there is no issue that is permanently removed from debate in this country just because you got a simple majority on the Supreme Court at one point to rule your way.
Ditto, Obamacare, no thanks to Justice Roberts!
“Just wait until Judge Ginsburg needs replacement. It will be the end of the world.”
Amen to that. Kavenaugh shifts a swing vote to solid conservative, but a Ginsburg replacement under Trump will be hard left to hard right, and shift what will be narrow margins to solid 6-3 decisions. What we are seeing now is nothing compared to what is coming.
Of course it can. If it couldn’t we would still have segregated public schools.
Someone should ask Feinswine if she thinks that Supreme Court was wrong when it overturned the earlier SCOTUS decision in the “Dredd-Scott” case, since she seems to believe that once the SCOTUS decides, that’s it until the end of time.
Mark
Someone should ask Feinswine if she thinks that Supreme Court was wrong when it overturned the earlier SCOTUS decision in the “Dredd-Scott” case, since she seems to believe that once the SCOTUS decides, that’s it until the end of time.
Mark
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.