He’s not an originalist, he’s a precedentist.
He will uphold precedent, even when it’s wrong.
Roe v Wade is in no danger of being over turned.
On the bright side, Heller and McDonald will be upheld.
“precedentist.”
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above."precentist"
In Collins speech, one of the reasons she supported him was his judicial temperament/actions to support the doctrine of stare decisis - i.e. once the Court has decided then subsequent decisions would respect such decisions. Collins may have been using that as cover or hope for his maintaining Roe, as she cannot come out and ask him how he would decide.
In recent 50+ year history, with the politicized court, stare decisis is important for democraps to maintain leftist Court decisions, but irrelevant when it comes to “originalist” decisions that are opposed to leftist legal interpretations.
I am not so sure that Roe v Wade can stand on its own today. While it has been over 30 years since I read it, what struck me back then was that the majority opinion stated that no one knew when life began. This was important to overcome the hurdle of the “right to life”. Once life begins, the state has an interest in protecting that right. The other thing that struck me is that the majority recognized a state interest in regulating abortion in the 3rd trimester. Hence the Roe justgices knew there was enough evidence to show a human being in existence in the 3rd trimester. The leftist laws/decisions since then have more or less ignored this part of Roe. The political left wants everyone to believe that there are no limits to abortion. But the left also knows, because they have effectively used it in advancing their cause, that the practice of political incrementalism needs to be avoided on abortion. If abortion is eroded or banned in the 3rd trimester, people will be told why, and with the advancement of science, then the question becomes why should we not ban abortions in the 2nd trimester ... after all technology exists to sustain a life less than 26 weeks. Then once that is in place, ... why should not life be protected when it really begins - effectively banning abortion?
If stare decisis were judicially immutable principle for overturning any prior decision, then Brown v Board of Education should never have been granted a hearing. But new facts developed over decades that challenged the viability of Plessy v Ferguson. The Chief Justice in Brown wanted the Supreme Court to come out 9 - 0 as he wanted no question as to its overturning such precedent, among other things. With the political court that we have today, one would never get a 9 - 0 on overturning Roe. But that should not stop its being overturned, as the left has had no problem implementing major social and political change through the Court without a 9 - 0. However, there is enough science and law to marginalize politically the opponents’ reputations, making them akin to the slave owners of times past - to be vilified in the future ad eternam.
One last point, while I have not read any articles on the overturning of Roe, I am generally aware that there are “liberal” legal articles out there who today view Roe as wrongly decided. So if it were overturned, they believe that abortion may continue - only in that it is not a federal issue ... but a state issue - to be decided at the level as to whether abortion should be legal. Some on the right have voiced this opinion long long ago, over the decades, only to be criticized by the left... until now. Whether states’ rights with the advancement of biology/genetics knowledge would be able to overcome a constitutional right to life is not certain, for such right to be taken away would require a compelling state interest .... is now another question. If the ever wise and all-knowing Roe Court had decided Roe on states’ rights to begin with, I think Roe might be in a stronger position today under stare decisis. However, it could still be challenged, using the same tactics and some of the arguments that the left has used with regards to capital punishment.
Sorry for the long winded answer to your good, succinct observations. I need to work on my verbosity problem. But I will conclude that for someone like Kavanaugh, there is enough other legal precedent and other judicial doctrines to overcome being handcuffed by stare decisis on Roe - without violating his general belief / practice in the doctrine of stare decisis should Roe be challenged. The question of course is would he vote to overturn Roe?
I don't know 100% what kind of justice he will be, and neither do you.
All levels of the judiciary are obliged to follow precedent...except for the Supremes. That's the way it's supposed to be. It means nothing else.