Yesterday was an exceptional day. It was a mix-up of the January 6 fake clown show, which is trying to present a demonstration at US Capitol as some type of attempted coup. We had our so called President, Attorney General and Speaker of the House attack a Supreme Court Decision that eliminated a national shame (BREAKING : SCOTUS overturns Roe and Casey in 6-3 decision).
While unseemly–the Attorney General’s statement carried a whiff of “insurrection’ because it seemed to hint that the Department of Justice would not adhere to the decision–it was the kind of partisan drivel that we’ve come to expect from a political party that, in aviation parlance, is out of altitude, out of airspeed, and out of ideas. Even more concerning was the criticism levelled at three of the justices. DobbsBy Senator Susan Collins (Vichy-Maine), majority, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch Her statement regarding the DobbsDecision, in which she lamented about how difficult this decision was for women wanting to murder their offspring. She also made an attack on two of the justices.
This is contrary to what Justices Gorsuch & Kavanaugh stated in their testimony, and the meetings they had with me. They both insist on the importance supporting precedents long standing that are relied upon by the country.
Although we don’t know the details of private conversations between Collins and Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, it is possible to look at what was stated during the confirmation hearings. Here I will rely on the yeoman’s work done by former RedState and current National Review contributor Dan McLaughlin.
FactCheck.org walked through the statements, and you can read them at length for yourself. These are the latest examples. Neil Gorsuch is one such example.Roe V. WadeThe precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 is titled “In re:,” The decision has been reiterated. There are many factors to take into account when analyzing precedent. It is a U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In 2005, it was confirmed. Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. It will be treated as precedent in the United States Supreme Court’s view by a competent judge.
Gorsuch cautioned, however: “If I were to start telling you which are my favorite precedents or which are my least favorite precedents or if I view precedent in that fashion, I would be tipping my hand and suggesting to litigants that I have already made up my mind about their cases.” Brett Kavanaugh did much the same:
In general, I can see the value of the precedent laid out in Roe V. Wade. . . . [It]This is a crucial precedent set by the Supreme Court. This precedent has been repeatedly reaffirmed. In 2005, it was confirmed again. Casey vs. Planned Parenthood in 1992 when the court specifically considered whether to reaffirm it or whether to overturn it. In that case, in great detail, the three-justice opinion of Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter and Justice O’Connor went through all the factors, the stare decisis factors, analyzed those, and decided to reaffirm Roe. This is how it works Casey precedent on precedent. You can rely on it. Casey itself has been cited as authority in subsequent cases such as [Washington v.] Glucksberg and other cases. As you can see, precedent on precedent is very important. stare decisis in this context.
This description contains accurate information about the history. Roe. But Kavanaugh also reassured Senator Lindsey Graham that he was open to arguments for revisiting precedents: “Precedent is critically important. It is the base of our system. But you listen to all arguments.”
While Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were the targets of Collins’ diatribe, Amy Coney Barrett has been hit with the utterly false claim that she acknowledged Roe as a “super precedent.” This is an example, though, in fairness, I will point out that the writer did delete this tweet and correct it. This is Barrett’s best claim.
Barrett was actually quite the opposite at her confirmation hearing, when she said that RoeIt is constantly being attacked.
Judge Barrett on Roe & super-precedent definition: “to define cases that are so well-settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. Roe is not included in this category, and I am answering many questions about it. pic.twitter.com/bmU3Xk4R8v
— CSPAN (@cspan) October 13, 2020
It is clear that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh did not say anything at their confirmation hearing other than acknowledging it. RoeTheir belief was established as a precedent. stare decisis. They said nothing that could be understood by anyone other than a fool. Collins has every right to suspect that Collins and the spies lied in secret. Collins also had no reason to doubt that Collins heard what they were saying and was too busy focusing on what they actually said. All precedents are overruled. Court of Appeal that decided Brown vs. Board of EducationIt was all well-known that Ferguson vs. Plessy was a well-established and widely accepted 60-year-old precedent, though I’m pretty sure that most would agree that only the most stupidly literally-minded court would have voted to retain it.
It is one thing to disagree with a judge’s ruling. Falsely accusing them that they lied to obtain the position is a completely different matter.
About Post Author
