Posted on 09/18/2020 5:37:02 PM PDT by Arcadian Empire
Judge William Pryor, a member of the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, is widely considered to be one of the leading potential nominees for the Supreme Court. In a previous statement, Pryor did not mince words when it comes to his feeling about how wrong and far-reaching the Roe case was decided.
He once called the high court’s decision in the controversial abortion case of Roe v. Wade the “worst abomination in the history of constitutional law,” according to the court-watching website Above the Law.
Meanwhile, Pryor told a Senate panel, “I believe that not only is [Roe] unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it has led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children.”
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
Sounds good on this issue, at least. :)
Actually, Laurence Tribe once said Roe was wrongly decided, but he’d probably deny now he said it.
He’s a lot better than Kavanaugh or Gorsuch, but it wouldn’t be bad if it was someone younger.
The problem is we only have two Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe, not including John Roberts, who may or may not do that.
In a chat, we were talking about Janice Rogers Brown.
A nomination like that would hit the Dems where it hurts.
So, as I see it, there are 53 republicans in the senate, 45 democrats and 2 independents.
If we lost Murkowsi, Collins, Romney, we would have 50 votes and Pence casting the deciding vote...correct?
Ted Cruz.
She’s 71 years old. If it were twenty years ago she would be the obvious choice. Trump will pick someone younger, and my guess is that person will be Black or Hispanic.
No men for this nomination. It’s too easy to fabricate dirt against them. Trump needs a squeaky clean, smart female judge that the left can’t destroy through smears, innuendo, rumors, etc.
William O. Douglas in Griswold V. Connecticut
“specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance”
Which is political BS for: “ignore what the law says, you can make it mean whatever you want it to”
Roe V. Wade came from this absurd and nonsensical type of legal thought.
Thomas and Alito.
It has to be a woman nominee to avoid the fiasco of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.
Yes. The problem is the decision has been on the books since the 1970's and the more time that passes the less likely even conservative justices will overturn it. Casey was the opportunity, but Kennedy screwed up.
I think Cory Gardiner would be a tough vote too
Scoop: Trump “saving” Judge Amy Barrett for Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat
AXIOS
Barrett is a favorite among conservative activists, many of whom wanted her to take Kennedy’s spot.
She’s young and proudly embraces her Catholic faith.
Her past academic writings suggest an openness to overturning Roe v. Wade.
Her nomination would throw gas on the culture-war fires, which Trump relishes.
But Trump chose to wait.
Some Trump advisers worried Barrett’s staunch opposition to abortion rights would lose the votes of Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). But there wasn’t consensus; some advisers argued they would ultimately “do the right thing” and vote for Barrett.
Trump came to doubt that “the women” (his shorthand for Collins and Murkowski) would support Barrett, according to sources who discussed the situation with Trump at the time.
Some of Trump’s aides also felt confident about picking up more Senate seats in the 2018 midterms (which they did), meaning a more conservative pick might stand a better chance later.
Yes, but: There’s no guarantee Trump will get another Supreme Court pick. It’s very unlikely Ginsburg will retire while he’s in office. And though she’s 86 and has had 3 bouts with cancer, she’s on the bench now and appears healthy.
Barrett isn’t a lock even if Trump does get to make another appointment, the people familiar with his thinking said.
Barrett has the inside track “in a very specific sense,” said a source who’s discussed Barrett with Trump. “She is the most known quantity right now amongst the women on the list. ... And she also has the inside track in the sense that she was kind of battle-tested for having gone through a confirmation already.”
Between the lines: Trump changes his mind all the time, and Barrett would need to undergo a fresh round of vetting to review the rulings and public comments she’s made since confirmed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017.
And now we have two Kennedy disciples on the court, and no Scalia disciples. John Roberts had a staunch pro-life record before he was nominated, but who knows now.
Grassley said years ago no nomination before election
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.