Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

VIDEO: Sotomayor: Partial-Birth Abortion Case Is "Settled Law"
Real Clear Politics ^ | July 14, 2009 | Real Clear Politics

Posted on 07/14/2009 8:55:52 AM PDT by ianschwartz

Judge Sonia Sotomayor says Gonzales v. Carhart, a case regarding partial-birth abortion is "settled law."

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; soniasotomayor

1 posted on 07/14/2009 8:55:52 AM PDT by ianschwartz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ianschwartz

She is saying a lot of the right things, but the question is how will she feel about it in a year or two when she has to answer to nobody.

If her answers today are truthful and binding, she may in the end not be any worse than David Souter.


2 posted on 07/14/2009 9:00:13 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ianschwartz

Yeah and the Dred Scott case was settled law until it wasn’t. What a lunatic


3 posted on 07/14/2009 9:00:29 AM PDT by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
David Souter

that was bad enough CW

4 posted on 07/14/2009 9:02:02 AM PDT by wardaddy (Proudly Anti-Abortion, not and will never be Pro-Life...........Sarah Palin, there is no substitute)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ianschwartz
I guess that means that "Roe" is settled law too. The only thing these folks do not consider settled law is that stuff the Madison and the boys came up with in 1787-91.

ML/NJ

5 posted on 07/14/2009 9:03:04 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ianschwartz

“Partial birth” abortion is NOT settled law. What an idiot.


6 posted on 07/14/2009 9:03:07 AM PDT by subterfuge (BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge
You know Carhart upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion, right?
7 posted on 07/14/2009 9:04:17 AM PDT by Dan Middleton (Reject political personality cults, on the left or the right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
She will say anything to get the nomination. I don't trust her.
I really don't think she knows the difference between the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of government.
8 posted on 07/14/2009 9:06:00 AM PDT by DYngbld (I have read the back of the Book and we WIN!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dan Middleton

When was that and when was the original ruling?


9 posted on 07/14/2009 9:07:20 AM PDT by subterfuge (BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ianschwartz

Dred Scott was settled law.


10 posted on 07/14/2009 9:08:51 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“the question is how will she feel about it in a year or two when she has to answer to nobody”

BINGO!!!!

Like her boss she is a damned liar. Judge her not by what she says, but by her record.

And her record exposes her as a shameless sexist racist and an individual who has no concept of the Constitution and Constitutional Law. Most of her decisions which reached SCOTUS were overturned and that says it all.

Her sole qualification is her ethnicity and the fact that she shares her boss’s opinion that the Constitution is really nothing but a scrap of paper created by a bunch of dead old white guys.


11 posted on 07/14/2009 9:08:56 AM PDT by ZULU (God guts and guns made America great. Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: the long march

....and more recently Kelo.


12 posted on 07/14/2009 9:09:15 AM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Sonia has past rulings on race and gun control are dreadful. However her ruling abortion aren’t as bad. No doubt, she’ll uphold Roe. However, she may uphold resonable restrictions on abortions (i.e parental consent, bans on taxpayer funding and late term abortion). So Sonia may be a marginal set up from Ruth Bader Ginsburg.


13 posted on 07/14/2009 9:10:24 AM PDT by yongin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge
It was a 2007 decision, on appeal from an Eigth Circuit ruling holding the ban unconstitutional in 2005. Just Google the case name. Gonzalez v. Carhart upheld the ban. Sotomayor saying that's settled law is a good thing...the problem is that she probably doesn't mean it.
14 posted on 07/14/2009 9:10:24 AM PDT by Dan Middleton (Reject political personality cults, on the left or the right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dan Middleton

A two year old ruling is not “settled law” in my book, I don’t care if it was affirmed or not.


15 posted on 07/14/2009 9:15:35 AM PDT by subterfuge (BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: the long march

“I’m sorry, Mr. [Thurgood] Marshall. ‘Plessy’ is settled law, after all. Go away.”


16 posted on 07/14/2009 9:16:08 AM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge

Very well. I just suspect half the people reading this thread don’t know what the outcome of the case was, though that won’t stop them from posting.


17 posted on 07/14/2009 9:17:51 AM PDT by Dan Middleton (Reject political personality cults, on the left or the right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ianschwartz; SumProVita; HardStarboard; BradyLS; Ernest_at_the_Beach; dervish; Twotone; ...

The list, ping


18 posted on 07/14/2009 9:17:59 AM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pogo101

Exactly.


19 posted on 07/14/2009 9:20:34 AM PDT by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge

That is a good point. IN fact, it should be considered an error in judgment for a supreme court nominee to suggest that a case so recent qualifies as “settled law”.


20 posted on 07/14/2009 9:23:09 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ianschwartz

i’m not up on all law issues...(hey i have a family, a life, and i am not a lawyer.) but everything i have seen or heard about this lady makes me think she has been phoning it in while she has been on the bench. she seems to just go along with whatever anyone else has already “settled”. maybe she is not smart enough to actually read and interpret the law, or perhaps she just is not interested in doing so, but it sure looks like she is a parrot.


21 posted on 07/14/2009 9:29:02 AM PDT by madamemayhem (there are only two places in the world: over here and over there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ianschwartz

And Plessy v. Ferguson was settled law...until Brown v. Board of Education. You could not have a minimum wage or child labor laws...until another Supreme Court changed its mind in the ‘30’s. All of the New Deal exceeded any prior reach of the Commerce Clause, until another Court changed its mind.

When it comes to the Supreme Court, precedent can change, sometimes for the better, usually not. Just because there is precedent for something doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. The Court has repeatedly revisited issues and found earlier decisions to be wrongly decided. It would be great to see the Commerce Clause cases rolled back, that would significantly narrow the scope of Federal government activities, but that isn’t likely...but it COULD happen.


22 posted on 07/14/2009 9:33:36 AM PDT by mak5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ianschwartz

I believe more accurately she said it is settled law until it isn’t. (As she said was all settled law.)


23 posted on 07/14/2009 9:34:42 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ianschwartz

Why wasn’t she asked: Then how is the Second Amendment not settled law?


24 posted on 07/14/2009 9:46:53 AM PDT by anonsquared
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Also, don’t forget the 2nd Amendment/Joyce Foundation angle:

Sotomayor: Obama’s End Run on the Second Amendment

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/sotomayor-obamas-end-run-on-the-second-amendment/


25 posted on 07/14/2009 9:55:18 AM PDT by AliVeritas (Ez 38 Pray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: the long march

Just fired off a version of this to Isakson and Chambliss. Suggest you let YOUR guys hear from YOU ASAP!!!! EVEN IF YOUR GUY IS A LOCKSTEP DIMOCRAP, TIME TO MELT DOWN THE CAPITOL LINES AGAIN!
CALL (202) 224-3121 AND ASK FOR YOU GUY’S OFFICE.
db

Senator,
A vote AGAINST Sonia Sotomayor will be a vote FOR principle.

Regardless of her testimony and responses, she is a dangerous leftist. And the argument by the increasingly silly and irrelevant Lindsey Graham that she is no worse than Souter is akin to a doctor telling you that your lung cancer is cured – but you have leukemia. I heard Graham remark that “The President has a right to get the people he wants.” That “logic” says that if Obama WANTS to abolish an elected legislature for a politbureau of his fellow Chicago thugs – which he is in the process of doing with his “czars,” — you should simply roll over, move on and let him have it. Good grief!!

Should you be tempted to vote FOR her to curry favor with Georgia’s large Hispanic population, you will be making a HUGE error in judgment. Thousands of them are non-citizens, here in violation of immigration laws and, in light of the recent idiotic Justice Department ruling that Georgia may NOT require voters to show ID, ACORN (or whatever they are calling themselves today) will drag them to the polls on election day anyway. And if you think they will vote for you because you supported Sotomayor, you had better think again: ACORN WILL INSTRUCT THEM VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT OR THEY WON’T GET THE PROMISED 20 BUCKS, PACK OF SMOKES OR WHATEVER.

VOTE “NO” ON SOTOMAYOR!

Dick & Sharon Bachert


26 posted on 07/14/2009 9:55:42 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (ELECTION 2010 IS THE MOST IMPORTANT OF OUR LIFETIME! If you have to ask why, UR part of the problem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Just fired off a version of this to Isakson and Chambliss. Suggest you let YOUR guys hear from YOU ASAP!!!! EVEN IF YOUR GUY IS A LOCKSTEP DIMOCRAP, TIME TO MELT DOWN THE CAPITOL LINES AGAIN!
CALL (202) 224-3121 AND ASK FOR YOU GUY’S OFFICE.
db

Senator,
A vote AGAINST Sonia Sotomayor will be a vote FOR principle.

Regardless of her testimony and responses, she is a dangerous leftist. And the argument by the increasingly silly and irrelevant Lindsey Graham that she is no worse than Souter is akin to a doctor telling you that your lung cancer is cured – but you have leukemia. I heard Graham remark that “The President has a right to get the people he wants.” That “logic” says that if Obama WANTS to abolish an elected legislature for a politbureau of his fellow Chicago thugs – which he is in the process of doing with his “czars,” — you should simply roll over, move on and let him have it. Good grief!!

Should you be tempted to vote FOR her to curry favor with Georgia’s large Hispanic population, you will be making a HUGE error in judgment. Thousands of them are non-citizens, here in violation of immigration laws and, in light of the recent idiotic Justice Department ruling that Georgia may NOT require voters to show ID, ACORN (or whatever they are calling themselves today) will drag them to the polls on election day anyway. And if you think they will vote for you because you supported Sotomayor, you had better think again: ACORN WILL INSTRUCT THEM VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT OR THEY WON’T GET THE PROMISED 20 BUCKS, PACK OF SMOKES OR WHATEVER.

VOTE “NO” ON SOTOMAYOR!

Dick & Sharon Bachert


27 posted on 07/14/2009 9:56:02 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (ELECTION 2010 IS THE MOST IMPORTANT OF OUR LIFETIME! If you have to ask why, UR part of the problem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

Yeah unfortunately my senators are Boxer and Feinstein do you think they even give a rats crap about what I think?

I work agin em every election but....


28 posted on 07/14/2009 10:11:28 AM PDT by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ianschwartz

29 posted on 07/15/2009 8:40:19 AM PDT by Salvation (With God all things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson