Skip to comments.More Feinstein insanity: Isn't Roe v. Wade a 'super-precedent,' Judge Gorsuch?
Posted on 03/22/2017 8:14:13 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
Rob brought you some first-rate Dianne Feinstein insanity yesterday, but you realize the week is young, right?
I sometimes get frustrated with conservatives who treat Supreme Court nominations as if they are nothing more than a means to stop abortions - not that this isnt important, but youd think the federal courts do nothing that matters aside from deciding whether Roe v. Wade will stand or fall. But lets be fair here: Democrats are every bit as obsessed with this if not more so. Even if theyre only doing it to check a box with their most ardent pro-abortion backers, they cannot in any way get through a nomination hearing without trying to find some way to trip up a Republican presidents court nominee on the issue.
Well, Roe has snuffed out about fifty million human lives, so, yes, it is a super precedent.
In college, we were taught, according to the Uniform Commercial Code, that if you are liable for killing a farmer’s cow that is pregnant, you must pay for the cow and her unborn calf.
But DOMA wasn’t a ‘super-precedent’ right, DiFi and Gorsuch?
It concerns me that Gorsuch only referenced the Heller decision as the law of the land when talking about gun rights. No mention of the second amendment.
I took it to mean that he would consider Roe as the law of the land and not consider overturning it.
Notice that all unusual and divisive issues are women driven.
Liquor, smoking, abortion, anti-gun, gay marriage, contraception...
The gay marriage ruling (”super precedent”) was pretty simple and clear - sexual orientation is under the 14th amendment.
If I remember right, Roe was not simple. (I’m not a lawyer but re-read it a few months ago) They talked about 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimesters and viability and left open the possibility of late term restrictions except in case of the life of the mother. No decisions since have closed the door on late term restrictions - only on the specific laws that have been written to overturn Roe or add restrictions.
Democrats want to claim that ALL abortions fall into the Roe decision on early abortions (it’s a settled “super precedent”). I don’t know why Republicans don’t talk about the uncertainties and potential for restrictions in Roe after viability. My guess is that they want an absolute decision (overturn all of Roe) as much as the Democrats want absolute decision (all abortions legal).
A different decision from the same day as Roe, Doe v. Bolton, is what actually says that pretty much any doctor can decide an abortion is appropriate at any time in pregnancy for any reason they can dream up (e.g. “the financial responsibilities of a child could cause the women mental pain and suffering”). That’s the one that needs to be changed for late term abortions. But it’s pretty vague so hardly a “super precedent” from my layman’s point of view.
Remember, he was confirmed unanimously as a Federal Judge including 11 sitting Dem Senators....including Schumer.
This grilling is supposed to be about character....not about how he would/might/could rule.
I think she stole that “super precedent” term from Arlen Specter, many years ago. Legal-political mumbo jumbo. Clear sign of liars who lie.
Yes, there are a lot of unhappy women (mostly unmarried) who want to cause trouble for the male population. Married women already have a guy at home they can trouble, I guess.
Dred Scott was a super precedent too.
What a dumb thought.
Roe was written without clear textual support from the Constitution. If anything, it would be the opposite of a super-precedent; more of a torn facial tissue ruling than a precedent.
Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
2Chron. 18:21 -
“And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his (Ahab) prophets. And the LORD said, You shall entice him, and you shall also prevail: go out, and do even so.”
Another take on if we are required to play by the rules when the wicked seek to use our honesty for evil purposes.
all unusual and divisive issues are women driven.
Wonder why no congressperson has included “ free condoms” for men to be equal to free birth control......
They don’t think fast enough on their feet when presented with these “ don’t dare touch my alleged rights” issues.
Bingo. As was PlessyFerguson.
The legal approach and PR approach don’t need to be the same. When Feinstein says Roe is a super precedent, it seems like a good opportunity for Rs to point out that Roe leaves the option open that the fetus is a life that deserves protection of the state as much as the mother.
I agree with that, for sure.
But there is nothing good about the Roe decision, because it establishes a fundamental right in law, that does not exist.
Nearly EVERYTHING that has been put forth as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, by the Left, is not a RIGHT. They just make it up as they go along and their minions (The masses AND their Media) parrot it as if it is fact. The Pied Piper had lots fewer loyal sycophants than the Left has.
For democrats it is always about the children.
Kill the children that is.
Another doddering octogenarian ruler showing off the massive loss of brain cells.
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.