If it were me, he would have walked out the door because I would have asked. It's interesting to see the take on this.
'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.'
Yes, but a terrible one that has denied the right to life to nearly 60 million unborn babies.
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.'
How can he possibly say that it's "no longer a hotly contested issue?" It's probably the most contested issue decided by the court in this country. People win and lose elections on this issue.
It's interesting to see this writer's take and the take of Life News which saw it differently:
Judge Neil Gorsuch today refused to go along with an assumption by pro-abortion Senator Dianne Feinstein that the Roe versus Wade abortion case is “super precedent.”
Feinstein attempted to trap the appeals court judge into agreeing that the infamous Roe case and its decision allowing unlimited abortions is a “super precedent” that cannot be overturned. Gorsuch did not take the bait and left himself room to overturn the pro-abortion decision should he be affirmed for the Supreme Court.
Do you view Roe as “super precedent?” Feinstein asked.
Gorsuch merely said: “It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that, yes.”
Feinstein, attempted to assert her position, replied: “Dozens.”
http://www.lifenews.com/2017/03/21/judge-neil-gorsuch-refuses-to-say-roe-v-wade-case-for-unlimited-abortions-is-super-precedent/
The Life News article continues and is very positive with regards to Gorsuch and pro-life issues.
My sincere hope it that he will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but I've felt nervous about him. I have no idea why as the pro-life camp seems very positive towards him including pro-life stalwarts since Rick Santorum. Maybe it's in part because the left has been complimentary towards him on networks like CNN. Hopefully, someday Roe vs. Wade is overturned and I'll find out I had no reason to be nervous at all.
at least DiFi didn’t call it a super duper precedent.
That was a STUPID question, a far worse answer, and I don’t like Gorsuch at all and don’t trust him.
The Dread-Scott case was precedent at the SCOTUS for many more years than has been Roe V Wade. In neither case does precedent mean that a precedent cannot, rightfully even, be challenged by the SCOTUS.
I wonder how many times slavery was reaffirmed.
Gorsuch is smart enough not to answer a litmus test question.
TRump is smart enough not to ask it.
What the hell is a “super precedent”? Is that a term that’s circulating these days of food Fineswine just make it up on the spot? It is a precedent, sure, but so we’re a lot of rulings liberal SCOTI trashed.
The only precedent that would matter to me are the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, and any and everything else written by the Founding Fathers and anybody else of note during that era. I don’t care about “precedent,” especially about anything modern.
This is a terrible sign.If you would not commit 100% to stop the baby killing I would have thrown your ass out the door? What the hell do you think happened with sotomyore and kagan.Are we stupid or just Naieve? I worry about this guy. I see Roberts all over this guy!!
That bitch, Feinstein doesn’t belong in the same room as Neil Gorsuch.
My reply to her statement would be too foul to print.
“Super Precedent” is something she made up with her twisted little fart brain.
Nowhere did Gorsuch state that he wouldn’t vote to overturn Roe v Wade. Only that it would be a challenge to overturn it, and that he wouldn’t allow the President to tell him what to do.
The federal government will overturn Roe vs Wade when it is pretty much overturned at state level.
Roe was decided on two main legal points:
1) that an unborn child was not a “person” for the purpose of being protected by or falling under the US Constitution. It was therefore the property of the mother;
2) that a woman has a right to privacy.
While the right to privacy is not directly enumerated in the Constitution, it is implied in the Fourth Amendment. Free people have always claimed the right. It pre-exists apart from the Constitution and thus is reserved to the People according to Amendment X.
Having said that, in declaring that an unborn child is not a person, the Court has used the same logic as it did in Dred Scott when runaway Negro slaves were declared to be the property of their owners.
Just as with same-sex marriage, liberals were in such a hurry to fabricate a new right that they did not care what logic they trampled underfoot. The issue could have been decided by the States. New York State had already legalized abortion when Roe was argued.
Yet another sad chapter in the history of the Supreme Court.
Whatever Neil. Phony alert
Gorsuch just said f u to women who want to keep the baby and be recognized. The slippery slope starts with this kind of equality.
Are these people capable of interpreting and translating the law correctly? No, they are language dunces.
Roe v Wade is terrible written law re our Constitution. That said, abortion is here to stay forever. We all understand this, no? Just as murder and rape are here to stay forever, so will abortion always be here.
Doctors can say they are giving a woman a D&C when performing an early abortion. Doctors can illegally perform abortions, no back alleys needed. Back alleys will also still exist.
Hearts and minds is the way to prevent and stop abortions. It’s just about visible at 5 weeks, your baby’s beating heart. Amazing how tech has prevented abortions. Five weeks? That is 21 days, or 3 weeks, after you had that oopsie sex. And your baby’s heart is beating.
I’ve been meaning to say that I think Gorsuch is a poor candidate for the SCOTUS. It’s just about what I’ve gleaned on C-Span.
Something is just not right about the man, if you will, despite the posted photos with him associating with Scalia, who was probably murdered.
And so, here is the evidence. Sigh.
www.libertariansforlife.org
Had he answered that he would seek to overturn Roe, he would be guilty of the same judicial activism he has been against for some time now.
Anything from the fascist “media” exploding heads about Gorsuch saying that DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER is “the law of the land”? As long as we have the Second Amendment, the far left loses. They can’t take away our country until they take away our guns.
actually, Roe v. Wade would be VERY EASY to overturn, on the merits anyway.
Abortion is nowhere even mentioned or contemplated in the constitution. Even the Roe decision acknowledges this,
having to “find abortion” in the “pnumbra” (unseeable shadows) of the constitution.
so that part of the nominee’s statement is NOT reassuring, to put it mildly.
as for his stated independence, fine with me, good on that.
he should be independent, but not independent of the constitution like Ginzberg and a couple of the others nowadays on the court. And, not independent of the constitution like Roe v. Wade.