Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W:44]

Ikari said:

How is this surprising? It has been affirmed by the courts, it's not going to be overturned. Duh.

Click to expand...

Scrabaholic said:

*I* am not surprised. However, a lot of anti choicers were banking on RvW being overturned.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

How is this surprising? It has been affirmed by the courts, it's not going to be overturned. Duh.

Click to expand...

joG said:

The wonderful thing about the USSC can create new precedent, when the Justices realize that old rulings were wrong and the experiment ran amok.

Click to expand...

Northern Light said:

Trump doesn't really care about abortion. He flip flopped about it during the election campaign. But if you look at Gorsuch's track record on rulings relating to sex, race, orientation, and the disabled, you'll understand why Trump chose him. He's more of an asset to the alt-right than people are giving him credit for because they are myopically stuck on the subject of abortion.

The fact that Gorsuch would uphold Roe v Wade is probably the key factor that would get him voted onto the bench by the Dems even though the rest of what he supports is pretty awful. :shrug:

Click to expand...

WCH said:

What do you care? And that anti-abortioners.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

They can, but it is an uphill battle, and RvW is pretty much canon at this point. It would take quite a bit to overturn, more than any Republocrat would dare work towards. So less it's a Constitutional amendment, it's here to stay.

Click to expand...

Scrabaholic said:

Evidently, the concept of a debate board escapes you......

Click to expand...

Scrabaholic said:

“Roe v. Wade is a precedent of the Supreme Court,” Gorsuch said during his first day of questioning. “It was reaffirmed in Casey ... and in several other cases.”

Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a Supreme Court case in 1992 that established states have the right to put certain restrictions on abortions as long as they don’t create an “undue burden.”

“It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed,” Gorsuch added.

As is standard for judges during confirmation hearings, Gorsuch repeatedly said he would not talk about how he would rule on particular issues. But he also said precedent is an important part of how he rules as a judge.

Read more here: Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch says respects precedent, even Roe V. Wade | The Sacramento Bee

===========================================================================


Trump *had* to have known Mr. Gorsuch's views on RvW, given how he said he'd appoint SC judges who would overturn it. Yet, he nominated him anyway. I don't think he had any intention of appointing judges who would overturn the ruling.

Click to expand...

Scrabaholic said:

*I* am not surprised. However, a lot of anti choicers were banking on RvW being overturned.

Click to expand...

VanceMack said:

Perhaps with a staunch and firm NO on overturning Roe V Wade, abortion could stop being a political football that everyone uses but no one really cares about and people could actually start working together to make abortion safe, legal, and rare.

Click to expand...

Scrabaholic said:

“Roe v. Wade is a precedent of the Supreme Court,” Gorsuch said during his first day of questioning. “It was reaffirmed in Casey ... and in several other cases.”

Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a Supreme Court case in 1992 that established states have the right to put certain restrictions on abortions as long as they don’t create an “undue burden.”

“It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed,” Gorsuch added.

As is standard for judges during confirmation hearings, Gorsuch repeatedly said he would not talk about how he would rule on particular issues. But he also said precedent is an important part of how he rules as a judge.

Read more here: Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch says respects precedent, even Roe V. Wade | The Sacramento Bee

===========================================================================


Trump *had* to have known Mr. Gorsuch's views on RvW, given how he said he'd appoint SC judges who would overturn it. Yet, he nominated him anyway. I don't think he had any intention of appointing judges who would overturn the ruling.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

Please, the Abortion forum is nothing but propaganda central. As evident by your own post calling folk "anti-choice".

Click to expand...

Josie said:

And a lot of pro-choicers were absolutely certain that Trump and his SC nominees would force pregnant women into back alleys again. It was at a frantic pinnacle right after he was elected. Abortion was going to be banned, gays would have to go back in the closet, anyone with non-white skin would be fearful of their lives, blah, blah, blah.

Click to expand...

Scrabaholic said:

Anti choice is a valid term.

Click to expand...

Northern Light said:

Trump doesn't really care about abortion. He flip flopped about it during the election campaign. But if you look at Gorsuch's track record on rulings relating to sex, race, orientation, and the disabled, you'll understand why Trump chose him. He's more of an asset to the alt-right than people are giving him credit for because they are myopically stuck on the subject of abortion.

The fact that Gorsuch would uphold Roe v Wade is probably the key factor that would get him voted onto the bench by the Dems even though the rest of what he supports is pretty awful. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

They can, but it is an uphill battle, and RvW is pretty much canon at this point. It would take quite a bit to overturn, more than any Republocrat would dare work towards. So less it's a Constitutional amendment, it's here to stay.

Click to expand...

Josie said:

And a lot of pro-choicers were absolutely certain that Trump and his SC nominees would force pregnant women into back alleys again. It was at a frantic pinnacle right after he was elected. Abortion was going to be banned, gays would have to go back in the closet, anyone with non-white skin would be fearful of their lives, blah, blah, blah.

Click to expand...

joG said:

The wonderful thing about the USSC can create new precedent, when the Justices realize that old rulings were wrong and the experiment ran amok.

Click to expand...

Maledon reviewed common law cases going back to the 18th century that established that “the law of property recognizes the rights of the unborn child from the moment of conception for all purposes which affect the property rights of that child.” American courts followed this common-law precedent. For example, a child in the womb was treated the same as any older siblings when it came to inheritances. The law’s recognition of the congruence between the being who was in the womb and the being who later took into his possession property left to him by his deceased father, for example, could not be clearer.

In a case decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1964, the court ruled that the state was justified in forcing a pregnant Jehovah’s Witness to receive blood transfusions that were necessary to save the life of her unborn child despite her religious objections to transfusions. The court recognized the state’s duty to give the unborn child equal protection of the law despite the mother’s assertion of a constitutional right not to receive the transfusion.

Maledon added that the unborn child’s “right to life is also evident from the fact that from the early common law to the present day the law has provided for the suspension of execution of pregnant women sentenced to death.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States is a party, holds that the death sentence “shall not be carried out on a pregnant woman.” Under federal law, “A sentence of death shall not be carried out upon a woman while she is pregnant.” These laws recognize that it would be unjust to execute an unborn child for the crimes of his mother in which he had no part.

Click to expand...