Skip to comments.Sotomayor calls abortion rights 'settled law'
Posted on 07/14/2009 12:08:11 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON Supreme Court aspirant Sonia Sotomayor said Tuesday that she considers the question of abortion rights is settled precedent and says there is a constitutional right to privacy.
The federal appeals court judge was asked at her confirmation hearing Tuesday to state how she felt about the landmark Roe versus Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1973.
Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee that "there is a right of privacy. The court has found it in various places in the Constitution." She said this right is stated in the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and in the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the law. She declined to say pointblank if she agreed with the high court's precedent on this volatile issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee members Sen. Lindsay Graham (L) (R-SC) and Al Franken (D-MN) laugh during a break in Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Capitol Hill in Washington July 14, 2009. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (UNITED STATES POLITICS CRIME LAW ENTERTAINMENT)
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor (C) returns from a break during the second day of her U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill in Washington July 14, 2009. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (UNITED STATES POLITICS CRIME LAW)
When Lyndsey is on Greta he sounds almost halfway reasonable.
Then I see a picture like this and I’m instantly transported back to the real world.
Are the 2nd and 10th amendments “settled law” as well?
Was a follow-up about the linkage between legal abortions and controlling the “undesirable” population asked?
Here we go — already “making law” from the bench.
Expect no less — Obama doesn’t.
Yuck it up Linsey..your days are numbered also.
That would be MY next question to her....
Well, that’s ballgame.
Color me not surprised. She’ll abort the child but keep nourishing Roe v. Wade.
Not according to Sotomayor - woman have a right to kill their unwanted child (after engaging in the behavior which resulted in that child being formed), but the right to bear arms and the rights of the states don’t exist. Apparently the right to privacy only applies when a child is being murdered.
Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor answers questions
from senators during her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation
hearings on Capitol Hill, July 14, 2009. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Anyone watching and catch her exact words? The guy I'm listening to on the radio just said "she said it's considered settled law." Not building my hopes on it (he's a fill-in host and I don't know how precise he normally is), but there's a significant difference between "I consider it settled law" (though even that leaves wiggle room, as opposed to "It's settled law") and "it's considered settled law."
Thanks for the clarification.
Funny how the left considers the right to privacy only when talking about abortion. Apart from that, they want to control the kind of cars you drive, what your kids “learn” in school, whether you get to keep your private property (Kelo anyone?), what you can do with your land, whether armed forces personnel are allowed to smoke or not, etc.
Of course, slavery used to be 'settled law' as well.
This is one of those days when I think our government is nothing but a kabuki play. We’re the butt of the joke and they’re all in on it.
The slave owners used the appeal to 'property rights' as well to justify their defense of Dred Scott.
That also was 'establishd law'.
When someone wants to bring up the right of the Supreme Court to dictate policy, that is the decision that should be shoved in their face.
Since scientifically, we know, I say again, we KNOW that a human being is created at conception, why in the world is the privacy right argument allowed to be used to protect certain murderers?
Because women were trying to pay back men for the centuries of holding power over them. In the past, men had total control over them, their bodies, a husband could commit his wife to an asylum with no questions asked, she had no recourse, just one example. This was the only method they had to use against men, the only thing they had to exert a power trip and they've succeeded in the brain-washing, unfortunately.
Man: That is one sickening picture. No. 3
You know that abortion is the state’s issue? It would fall under state’s rights. Roe v. Wade applied no federal mandate, it is up to individual states.
I have seen this argued both ways. It may not be a State's right issue if the argument is made that abortion denies one of the Constitutional protections of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: .....nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
I've also seen argued 13th amendment be used as it forbids one from owning the life of another. I think it is most efficiently fought on the State level first, but it is an issue that could be fought on both levels.
Alito and Roberts both gave the settled law answer. It is standard procedure. You do not expect a nominee to give a controversial answer do you?
You do not expect a nominee to give a controversial answer do you?
Not at all — especially not this one as radical and racist as she is. At the same time, it is indicative of the general attitude of the court which is unsettling to say the least. The SCOTUS has become a political body, as opposed to the impartial, pro-Constitution, strict-law-interpreting body that it should be. If I was not correct in making this statement, Biden would probably be president now....
Not according to Sotomayor and most all of the libs in this country
A picture is worth a thousand words.
In this case over 13 million words.
God bless the innocents who have been and will be killed.
I’d like to see one on Latino abortions right now with Sotomayor.