Skip to comments.We donít have to wonder how Brett Kavanaugh will rule on abortion, or almost anything else
Posted on 07/13/2018 9:14:02 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Abortion and the fate of Roe v. Wade are always near the center of the debate on any Supreme Court nomination. The controversy over nominee Brett M. Kavanaughs views on Roe offers a window into a system conservatives established a few decades ago to produce the kind of justices who would be fervent advocates for their cause, while also being just restrained enough in their beliefs to be confirmed. As a piece of political strategy, its absolutely brilliant, and it could hardly be working any better.
Among other things, it allows Republicans to finesse issues such as abortion on which their goals are terribly unpopular; only a third of the public believes Roe should be overturned. So Republicans rather shamelessly make self-contradictory arguments. On one hand, they are emphatically opposed to abortion rights, want to restrict those rights wherever they can, and fervently desire that Roe be overturned. On the other hand, especially when theres a shift in the courts ideological balance in play, they try to evade pointed questions about it, pretending that the nominee about whom they are so enthusiastic might not vote to overturn Roe, because you just never know. Recently, Vice President Pence who is more hostile to womens reproductive rights than almost any other politician in America was asked whether he hopes Roe will be overturned, and he answered, Well, I do, but I havent been nominated for the Supreme Court, as though his feelings, or at least what he would reveal about them, would be different in that case.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I dont think the author understands the meaning of the word reproduction.
The 2 most brilliant political moves in my lifetime:
1. Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America
2. President Trump’s List of 25 Conservative Judges
Sure they sound logical.
My guns are covered by the second amendment very specifically.
Exactly where are abortions specifically covered by the constitution?
Some liberals on SCOTUS thought you should be able to kill babies therefore it became law.
Abortion is not a right covered by the constitution.
So, those of you on the left who really want to screw good upstanding citizens out of our 2A rights can not really expect us to give one damn about the man made non constitutional mandated laws that cover abortion.
With this new judge on the court the abortions allowed by a group of men may or may not hold up. I don't care if abortions stay legal or not.
With this new judge on the court the new SCOTUS is going to ram our gun rights down the throat of the liberals and I will cheer when they do.
Liberals want everything their way no matter what the constitution says.
It is not going to happen this time.
The fact the media just sort of moved on already to talking about Russia and other things is the biggest signal of that. They have nothing on this guy.
“We dont have to wonder how Brett Kavanaugh will rule on abortion, or almost anything else”
FR pearl-clutchers, hand-wringers, and concern trolls are greatly saddened ...
He’s the most moderate guy on the list. The fact that the abortion sisters and McCain have fallen into line speaks volumes. I just hope he’s on our side more than not.
What exactly did want President Trump to do? Nominate Barrett so the RINO Sisters (Murkowski and Collins) could sink her, and then have the Democrats win majority Senate control in November and the nominee have to be Merrick Garland?
I agree that the constitution is a brilliant strategy.
And I'm sure that unborn children don't care about your gun rights. FWIW, I don't trust this appointment as far as I can spit.
Lets hope Wapoo is right this time. We wouldn’t want another Souter on our hands.
The WaaaaaaPo Compost think it’s a bad thing to not make the wanton killing of the unborn one’s highest [priority....they should be glad we’re under the New Covenant or they might get a whiff of the brimstone before it incinerated them...
The Democrats made these rules when they Borked Robert Bork.
Robert Bork was a well qualified nominee who had a public record on controversial issues. The Democrats changed the traditional standard and refused to vote for a well qualified nominee because they disagreed with how he might rule on specific cases.
Since then, we have had nothing but Stealth Nominees from Republican Presidents. Fortunately, we are getting better at it. No more Souters.
We cant return to the pre-Bork days. The Democrats broke the process. Now they whine because the Republicans are operating effectively in under the rules they created.
Tough beans. This is why you cant have nice things.
An individual SC justice doesn’t “rule.” Deliberate choice of words that lie.
These people are obsessed with abortion because they don’t want to face the wrath of unhinged hysterical feminazis.
The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.
I see this writer has already decided how Kavanaugh will vote, without having heard any evidence. Perhaps she should tell Kavanaugh; it could make his life much easier.
It was originally 11 potential Supreme Court nominees, then he added 10 more. Then he added people he had nominated, such as Amy Coney Barrett, to make the 25.
It’s reported that he added the first 10 just to get Gorsuch onto the list.
The he keeps adding names keeps the Democrats having to use scattershot and waste resources on people who aren’t going to be picked. (Hardiman?)
They're not, at least not in the way that the left would have you believe. Even Justice Blackmun, who wrote the travesty known as Roe v. Wade, said he found it in the "penumbras and emanations" of the Constitution.
Those "penumbras and emanations" are a combination of the Ninth Amendment's guarantee that rights not specifically enumerated are retained by the people, and the Fourth Amendment's implicit"right to privacy," derived from the guarantee of a right "to be secure in [our] persons, papers, houses, and effects." This is why Kavanaugh's argument that abortion is not an enumerated right is not the best way to go at it.
But abortion was illegal when these amendments were adopted, and even pro-aborts like Justice Ginsburg have said that Roe was badly decided. (She thinks there are other ways to get there.)
One can argue, in fact, that the Constitution -- not its penumbras and emanations, but the Constitution itself -- prohibits abortion. The Fourteenth Amendment says that all persons are entitled to "the equal protection of the laws" and both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments establish that nobody "shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
In any case, Roe is an abomination.
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.