Posted on 09/06/2018 1:30:23 PM PDT by Morgana
Under questioning from pro-life Senator Lindsey Graham, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh confirmed there is no “specific” right to abortion in the Constitution.
During his nomination hearings, Judge Kavanaugh has been careful to discuss abortion within the context of what the Supreme Court has decided in the precedent-setting cases of Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood without biasing the hearings with his own views in a way that would force him to recuse himself in future abortion cases before the court.
While most of the questioning has been from pro-abortion Democrats attempting to get Kavanaugh to agree that Roe, which allows virtually unlimited abortions up to birth, is “settled law” that can never be overturned, Graham took a different tact. He wanted Kavanaugh to confirm that a so-called right to abortion doesn’t exist in the Constitution. And Kavanaugh, who tried to remain impartial and to merely refer what the Supreme Court has done, eventually confirm that no specific words exist creating a right to kill unborn babies in abortions.
“Is there any phrase in the Constitution about abortion?” Graham asked Kavanaugh.
“The Supreme Court has found that under the liberty clause, but you’re right that specific words,” Kavanaugh said before stopping as Graham continued. Kavanaugh clearly was beginning to admit Graham’s point that abortion or a right to abortion is never specifically addressed in the Constitution — but was made up by the Supreme Court in 1973.
Graham then continued to focus on how the high court invented the abortion right.
SIGN THE PETITION: Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh
“I don’t remember [a right to abortion] being part of American history, so how did the court determine that it was? The last time I checked, liberty didn’t apply to abortion. The Supreme Court said it did, but here’s the point: what are the limits on this concept?”
The exchange appears below:
Earlier today, a new document was released showing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is possibly open to overturning the infamous Roe v Wade decision that allows virtually unlimited abortions up to birth.
During the first day of questioning, Judge Brett Kavanaugh refused to say that there is a so-called right to abortion. He declined to take the bait from pro-abortion Senator Dianne Feinstein who wants to get him to commit to upholding Roe v Wade once he is confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh also refused a pro-abortion senator’s request to promise to never overturn Roe v Wade, the high court case allowing abortions up to birth.
*******VIDEO ON LINK*********
BTTT.
I call BS. It’s a couple paragraphs past where permits are called for in the second amendment. Keep looking. Try over there near the collusion statues.
Obviously, he forgot to look in the penumbras.
There IS no such “right” in the Constitution. It MIGHT be in ONE of the EMANATIONS from the PENUMBRA! What a JOKE!
Vicious, fangtooth man-hating feminazis are foaming at the mouth.
“Vicious, fangtooth man-hating feminazis are foaming at the mouth.”
Yea but the rest of us are laughing our butts off!
The baby killing left will be apoplectic!
I’m warming up to him.
Elena Kagan: The ObamaCare Recusal That Wasn't ...Excerpt:
"...when in 2010 Obamacare passed and Ms. Kagan was {Obama's} solicitor general, Ms. Kagan viewed the passage as "simply amazing" and that she assigned a deputy in her office to help prepare legal defenses to any challenges to ObamaCare... she had in fact participated as "counselor or advisor" of the law when she was solicitor general, and she is clearly not impartial about the fate of ObamaCare."
Once again if not for their double standards Democrats would have no standards at all.
Or free healthcare, or welfare, or income tax, or, etc,etc,etc.
I'm sorry, but what importance do the Democrats think there is in a "commitment?" Didn't Obama say we could keep our doctors? Where was his commitment?
If Kavanaugh were to vote to overturn Roe v Wade...even if he "committed" not to...what can they do? It seems like childish theater to try and get him to make a "commitment." All Kavanaugh needs to say is "I evolved." isn't that what the Democrats always say when the break a promise?
Anyone ever hear the term “LIFE, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness?
If the term, “Liberty”, means “abortion is a right”, then it also means that bank robbery is a right, homicide is a right,
and any other lawful, or lawless act, is covered by you having the “liberty” to do it.
That’s such bull$h/+.
“While most of the questioning has been from pro-abortion Democrats attempting to get Kavanaugh to agree that Roe, which allows virtually unlimited abortions up to birth, is “settled law” that can never be overturned, Graham took a different tact. And Kavanaugh, who tried to remain impartial and to merely refer what the Supreme Court has done, eventually confirm that no specific words exist creating a right to kill unborn babies in abortions. “
Didn’t these damned journos ever read the Roe case?
Roe doesn’t allow virtually unlimited abortions up to birth. In the third trimester, Roe held, states have a valid interest in protecting the potential for life, so could restrict abortions then.
The Roe case never said that there WAS a specific word that creates a right to abort. They learn it out from convoluted interpretations of the 9th Amendment, the penumbral rights theory, and the fact that up until the 1860s, there weren’t a lot of laws against abortions on the books in any state, so therefore at the time of the founding women had a greater right to abortion than they did in 1973.
There is no such thing as “settled law” that can never be overturned. Plessy vs. Ferguson was overturned. The second ‘flag salute’ case overturned the first one, which was decided the year before by the same court. Dredd Scott and Hirabayashi were at one point settled law, but are so obsolete that the circumstances that gave rise to them are unlikely to ever occur again. Precedents get overturned, even ‘well settled’ precedents. It shouldn’t be done willy nilly, but sometimes it must be done.
I’m neither a journo nor a lawyer, but even I know that much. If they want Roe v. Wade to never be overturned, amend the Constitution. Otherwise, shut the hell up. For that matter, constitutional amendments get overturned, too, which is why it’s legal to buy booze in a bar or liquor store today. Dumb article.
And this is news ...why?
Always good to let the snowflakes and general public know there is no right to murder.
You mean they didn’t know that??????
We are in serious trouble in the next few years. Nobody knows what’s in the Constitution!!!
Thankfully, Trump is POTUS and we have the majority when it comes to Supreme Court Justices.
Vicious, fangtooth man-hating feminazis are foaming at the mouth AKA baby murderers
Rights are not given by the Constitution. Rights are enumerated to establish that the government shall not impinge or challenge them. There are many things the Constitution does not mention but that does not mean any of them are free food to quash.
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.