Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

More Feinstein insanity: Isn't Roe v. Wade a 'super-precedent,' Judge Gorsuch?
Canada Free Press ^ | 03/22/17 | Dan Calabrese

Posted on 03/22/2017 8:14:13 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 03/22/2017 8:14:13 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

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.


2 posted on 03/22/2017 8:20:16 AM PDT by odawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

But DOMA wasn’t a ‘super-precedent’ right, DiFi and Gorsuch?


3 posted on 03/22/2017 8:23:56 AM PDT by originalbuckeye ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

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.

Thoughts?


4 posted on 03/22/2017 8:28:09 AM PDT by bramps (It's the Islam, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony
So was Prohibition.

Notice that all unusual and divisive issues are women driven.

Liquor, smoking, abortion, anti-gun, gay marriage, contraception...

5 posted on 03/22/2017 8:32:38 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

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.


6 posted on 03/22/2017 8:36:24 AM PDT by LostPassword
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bramps
This is what it's about. Not an inkling on how he might rule on any issue that my come up before the court.

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.

7 posted on 03/22/2017 8:37:42 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

I think she stole that “super precedent” term from Arlen Specter, many years ago. Legal-political mumbo jumbo. Clear sign of liars who lie.


8 posted on 03/22/2017 8:39:08 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

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.


9 posted on 03/22/2017 8:40:18 AM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

Dred Scott was a super precedent too.


10 posted on 03/22/2017 8:40:32 AM PDT by Kozak (DIVERSITY+PROXIMITY=CONFLICT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

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.


11 posted on 03/22/2017 8:45:01 AM PDT by lurk (TEat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LostPassword
The trimester construct (and the later viability construct of Casey) are, to my way of viewing things, more on the "remedy" side. It is constitutional to forbid some abortions, but not constitutional to forbid others. The constitutional basis conjured up out of thin air by the SCOTUS, finding a fundamental right to abortion, is nothing more than the 14th amendment.
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."

12 posted on 03/22/2017 8:48:36 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

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.


13 posted on 03/22/2017 9:04:35 AM PDT by odawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

all unusual and divisive issues are women driven.

contraception...


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.


14 posted on 03/22/2017 9:06:50 AM PDT by patriotspride
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

Bingo. As was PlessyFerguson.


15 posted on 03/22/2017 9:11:29 AM PDT by Vendome (I've Gotta Be Me - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-pk2vZG2M)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

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.


16 posted on 03/22/2017 9:13:50 AM PDT by LostPassword
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LostPassword
-- The legal approach and PR approach don't need to be the same. --

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.

17 posted on 03/22/2017 9:17:01 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

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.


18 posted on 03/22/2017 9:40:42 AM PDT by originalbuckeye ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

For democrats it is always about the children.
Kill the children that is.


19 posted on 03/22/2017 9:41:52 AM PDT by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

Another doddering octogenarian ruler showing off the massive loss of brain cells.


20 posted on 03/22/2017 9:50:44 AM PDT by DPMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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