Collins: Won't support SCOTUS pick hostile to abortion rights

[JakeStarkey]

Roe v Wade has stood up to every challenge.

 

[Lysistrata]

From a purely logical standpoint, the argument that abortion murders a child cannot justify excluding rape or incest. Those children have as much right to live as any other child. Rape and incest exclusions show this argument for what it is--passing moral judgment on women's behavior.

Understand the thought, but one might also say that excluding rape or incest shows compassion for a young woman who has been brutalized. Many of whom are underage. Should we then not allow her that choice?

They should ALL be allowed that choice, in my opinion.

What about the unborn fetus? Where's your compassion for them? Why shouldn't they also have a right to life?

I came back here to make a contribution on the Supreme Court pick, not to get entangled in an abortion thread. I know I stuck my foot in, but I am now taking it out. We can talk about Roe v. Wade somewhere else.

Okay. Back to RvW, in the eyes of some people the SCOTUS seems to have exercised quite a bit of judicial discretion in this case. Using the right to privacy does seem a stretch to me. OTOH, I am also not sure we should have a federal law that says abortion is illegal either. Obviously I am somewhat conflicted on this, because we have the question of the rights to consider of the unborn person. Maybe it would be best left up to the individual states to decide.

In any event, I would not want to confirm a person who has already made their decision on this issue, independent of the situation and circumstances of the case brought before the Court.

Unfortunately, there are sitting justices who have already made up their minds and are willing to violate their oaths to do their judicial duties in cases dealing with the right to abortion.

The following is the transcript of the oral argument of Whole Women's Health:

Transcript: Oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

The argument of the Texas Solicitor General begins at page 36.

You will note that there are several justices who never asked even one question on the substance of the law at issue, even when he made what seemed to be ridiculous arguments, particularly in view of the information provided to the Court in amicus briefs. Please note the brief filed on behalf of amici American College of Obstetrics and Gynocology, et al.

 

[DOTR]

Untrue. It has stood up to numerous challenges.

You ignoramus. I didnt say it hadnt. I said it overturned centuries of law, precedence and tradition when it was decided. So the newfound liberal worship of stare decisis doesnt impress me.

 

[DOTR]

Wonder if the Right will target Brown v Board of education next?

Dont know. As a free people we could. Slavery is ending and your world is upside down.

 

[Marion Morrison]

 

[Marion Morrison]

I would have a real problem with Roe v Wade being overturned that goes beyond my stance as pro-choice. It's very much settled law with a huge amount of caselaw now supporting it. If it could be overturned, then precedent and case law no longer matter and ANYTHING can be overturned at ANYTIME. That should worry everyone.

Case law and precedent mattered not a white to Roe vs Wade. It overturned centuries of p[recedent and the laws of all 50 states.

"Revolutionaries despise traditional authority until they gain power, at which point authority again becomes sacred. Since the legal arguments of Roe are virtually nonexistent, it can only be defended by the argument from authority, stare decisis, a principle which Roe itself thoroughly repudiated."

Through the looking glass.

Untrue. It has stood up to numerous challenges.

Wonder if the Right will target Brown v Board of education next?

You don't really think that will come up as an issue, do you?

 

[DOTR]

You don't really think that will come up as an issue, do you?

Marxists think, or choose to pretend, that free peoples cant be trusted in self government but must be ruled. If the people are allowed to govern themselves they may make a mistake and be racist or sexist or use wrong pronouns or something.

 

[Marion Morrison]

You don't really think that will come up as an issue, do you?

Marxists think, or choose to pretend, that free peoples cant be trusted in self government but must be ruled. If the people are allowed to govern themselves they may make a mistake and be racist or sexist or use wrong pronouns or something.

Coyote is not a Marxist.

 

[Wry Catcher]

'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.

"I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."'

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Interesting.

very interesting, an honest Republican.

 

[DOTR]

You don't really think that will come up as an issue, do you?

Marxists think, or choose to pretend, that free peoples cant be trusted in self government but must be ruled. If the people are allowed to govern themselves they may make a mistake and be racist or sexist or use wrong pronouns or something.

Coyote is not a Marxist.

I dont care if she is or isnt. She just vomited marxism all over me.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I couldn't even read past the title. Abortion is not a "right". There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says a woman has the "right" to an abortion.

There is nothing in COTUS allowing EO's by a President, or the power of Judicial Review by the Supreme Court, or that prevents a citizen from owning a nuclear weapon, or voting twice, or same sex marriage, or ...a myriad of things.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.

"I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."'

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Interesting.

I agree with her.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.

"I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."'

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Interesting.

very interesting, an honest Republican.

Her and Snowe have been more honest than most give them credit. Snowe has been out of office for awhile but her and Collins have served Maine as very good Republican Senators...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.

"I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."'

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Interesting.

Unfortunately most Republicans fail to have the same respect for the rule of law.

 

[DOTR]

'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.

"I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."'

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Interesting.

very interesting, an honest Republican.

Her and Snowe have been more honest than most give them credit. Snowe has been out of office for awhile but her and Collins have served Maine as very good Republican Senators...

They just think the Maine lobster tariffs are bad now....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Untrue. It has stood up to numerous challenges.

You ignoramus. I didnt say it hadnt. I said it overturned centuries of law, precedence and tradition when it was decided. So the newfound liberal worship of stare decisis doesnt impress me.

And has stood up to numerous challenges since.

 

[JGalt]

I came back here to make a contribution on the Supreme Court pick, not to get entangled in an abortion thread. I know I stuck my foot in, but I am now taking it out. We can talk about Roe v. Wade somewhere else.

Okay. Back to RvW, in the eyes of some people the SCOTUS seems to have exercised quite a bit of judicial discretion in this case. Using the right to privacy does seem a stretch to me. OTOH, I am also not sure we should have a federal law that says abortion is illegal either. Obviously I am somewhat conflicted on this, because we have the question of the rights to consider of the unborn person. Maybe it would be best left up to the individual states to decide.

In any event, I would not want to confirm a person who has already made their decision on this issue, independent of the situation and circumstances of the case brought before the Court.

My greatest hope is that any individual chosen for the Supreme Court would do exactly that--make their decision based on the situation and the circumstances of the case brought before the Court. And I still have hope that indeed most of the Justices, realizing the gravity of their positions and the historic responsibility of their decisions, do exactly that. We know Scalia had said, "It's a law. It's a stupid law, but it's a law."
I am hoping that a lot of this screeching is fear mongering to get the Dems inspired to vote, although voting isn't going to do a damned thing for them, so I'm not sure why it would.
I'm going to pull the old lady routine and hope my government and my Court are far better people than the politicians will admit.

Well, if the Dems can regain control of the Senate then they can block future SCOTUS justice confirmations, so that's a big deal. I don't think the replacement for Kennedy will go all that smoothly, all the Dems need is one Repub to vote against it. I wouldn't count any chickens if I were the GOPers.

As for being better people, I can't say that I'm all that optimistic about that. Everything seems so tribal these days, which does not lend itself to real leadership and optimal governance.

The Democrats are essentially powerless to prevent Trump's next SC Justice, and they know it. Their delaying tactics will fail, since McConnell will, if he has to, keep the Senate in session 24 hours a day, seven days a week until Trump’s pick is confirmed. Nor can they be optimistic about peeling off the two pro-abortion Republican senators (Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins); even if they succeed, some Democrats facing reelection in states that Trump won will likely defect in the opposite direction. Remember: Three Democrats and every Republican voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch, so whomever Trump picks will be a shoo-in.

I believe the Democrats will stick together.

That's fine with me. Then they can fail together too.

 

[karpenter]

Flake Is Holding Up Circuit Court Appointments
And Won't Support Any SCOTUS Appt's
Until McConnell Picks Up On His Pet Projects

Jeff Flake threatens to block Trump's court nominees - CNNPolitics

 

[Care4all]

'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.

"I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."'

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Interesting.

very interesting, an honest Republican.

Her and Snowe have been more honest than most give them credit. Snowe has been out of office for awhile but her and Collins have served Maine as very good Republican Senators...

yes, they have....they both have known who they work for...us Mainiacs! NOT the Republican Party line......

 

[Care4all]

on a die note....

I think, though there have been no signs of it, that Trump will pick a WOMAN justice.... not that he really wants a woman, but the "show Business" of it, is what he likes.....and this could change the focus off of Stare Decisis.... and dare Dems to not vote for a woman, and dare Collins to not vote for a woman...



but what is most important for Trump, is NOT abortion rights, other than his promise to the evangelical supporters....

HIS PRIORITY is finding a Justice that believes the President, can not be charged with a crime, or be subpoenaed, or can pardon themselves of their own crimes and felonies.... he wants a justice that believes the President, is a King.