Posted on 04/05/2017 3:47:24 PM PDT by Kaslin
The abortion lobby has been in crisis mode ever since the early morning hours of November 9th, 2016 when they curled up with their cosmos and watched someone who had publicly promised to appoint a pro-life Supreme Court Justice and defund Planned Parenthood give his acceptance speech for the Presidency of the United States.
The people were given a choice to vote for someone who held radical views on abortion that lined up with only a small percentage of Americans. But they didn’t choose that woman. They chose President Trump and now, months later, their allies the U.S. Senate are trying everything they can to hold up the rightful confirmation of the new president’s Supreme Court pick.
NARAL, a large abortion advocacy group, is running ads. Planned Parenthood is sending out frantic fundraising emails and Cecile Richards is tweeting all kinds of crazy accusations against Judge Neil Gorsuch. Only nominees who fervently support Roe v. Wade are allowed on bench, according to the abortion industry.
But they didn’t win in November. They don’t get that choice anymore.
While the rhetoric is heated on whether or not a nominee supports Roe, the core issue is how the nominee views the Constitution and what their past opinions have said regarding abortion and the protection of life, if any.
Roe v. Wade, no matter what kind of made-up legal jargon Sen. Dianne Feinstein gives it, is a horrible judicial decision. Legal scholars, many of whom are pro-choice, agree that the decision is faulty.
Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the Supreme Court’s most ardent liberals, said Roe was “heavy-handed judicial intervention.”
The attorney for Al Gore in 2000, Lawrence Tribe, said that "One of the most curious things aboutRoe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."
Judge Gorsuch agreed during his confirmation hearing that Roe is precedent and is essentially the law of the land. It is now but that doesn’t mean it’s going to stay that way.
The Supreme Court has overruled past decisions that were, at the time, considered precedent.
Nowhere in the Constitution as it is written is there a right to abortion. A Constitutionalist would understand that and Judge Neil Gorsuch is a Constitutionalist who, from past opinions, holds a conservative philosophy and viewpoint, which President Trump believes would qualify him as a similar justice to the late Antonin Scalia.
If Hillary Clinton had won in November, either there would be no shortage of opinions to back up the pro-abortion philosophy of the nominee or the abortion lobby would be clamoring together in support of the judge, which is all any pro-lifer would need to know in order to oppose the nominee.
Americans had the chance to change the makeup of the Supreme Court in November and they voted in turn. The U.S. Senate needs to consider that result, move forward with the president’s pick, and confirm Judge Gorsuch without delay.
Is it something bigger that the left gets and dare not speak it? Roe v Wade, Anchor Babies, and Gay Marriage IMHO are they all misuse/misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment and if one of them fails ( my guess anchor babies will come up 1st ) that the other 2 naturally will have to be revisited? The progressive left can’t have it.
>the other 2 naturally will have to be revisited?
I guess one could always throw birth control in there and make it three. The lines can be fluid.
People’s expectations maybe set to high. The best I can see is it gets pushed back to the States to determine and that would take a near unanimous decision to overcome the weight of the years of stare decisis.
The rule that children born on U.S. soil to alien parents are U.S. citizens is much older than the 14th Amendment.
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."-- William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829).
I know a number of Roman Catholics who have converted to the Episcopal Church (as Gorsuch did).
Without exception, the reasons they converted are either 1) They are fanatically pro-abortion, or 2) They are fanatically pro-gay.
YMMV, but if you believe Judge Gorsuch does not approve of abortion, I think you are in for a disappointment.
The best I can see is it gets pushed back to the States to determine and that would take a near unanimous decision to overcome the weight of the years of stare decisis.
your analysis has nailed it perfectly...
How honest of her. Harry Blackmun knew he was hijacking the Constitution and every Liberal knows it too, but few will admit it.
The federal judge mounted a defense of his independence as a judge as he was questioned by senators, and also suggested that the 44-year-old decision that legalized abortion, is a powerful legal precedent that would be difficult to overturn. Gorsuch said in his confirmation hearing that the landmark women's rights case has been reaffirmed many times.
"It is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court," Gorsuch told the Senate Judiciary Committee, "so a good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."
Trump said during his presidential campaign that he would appoint only anti-abortion judges to the high court, and predicted that the long-term result would be Roe's demise.
But Gorsuch insisted the case's status as a repeatedly defended decision "adds to the determinacy of the law. What was once a hotly contested issue is no longer a hotly contested issue. We move forward."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3536902/posts
From a judicial perspective, it really isn't about "approving of abortion".
The real issue is this -- Is this a proper concern of the federal government?
I'm pretty sure Gorsuch will be willing to overturn Roe and push the question down to the states where it belongs.
One of the 3 worst in American history, IMO. The other 2 that were on this scale of horrible is the Dred Scott decision, and the pervert marriage decision.
Really bad things happen when governments pretend things to be true that aren't true.
The government pretended that black people aren't people to justify slavery.
The Germans pretended that Jewish people aren't people to justify the holocaust.
Roe v Wade pretends that preborn people aren't people to justify these killings for convenience.
And now the government is pretending that homosexuality is normal and the problems are only beginning.
Look, we have to trust President Reagan on this. Reagan ran as a pro-life candidate who would appoint judges that will overturn Roe v. Wade and I believe him. Whether Sandra Day O'Connor believes in abortion or not is irrelevant. Whether her personal views are conservative is also irrelevant. She said she is a strict constructionist and does NOT believe in legislating from the bench. Such a judge could NOT rule to uphold Roe v. Wade, since the constitution is silent on abortion and leaves it up to the states. We MUST confirm O'Connor to SCOTUS immediately so she will send abortion back to the states!
I gave you a direct quote from Rawle, who was appointed a U.S. Attorney by President George Washington.
Quotes are something much less than law or precedent.
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.