So nominee Gorsuch proclaims Roe v. Wade as precedent

[JakeStarkey]

"Judge Neil Gorsuch said Tuesday the controversial Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is “precedent” and acknowledged the ruling had been reaffirmed “many times.”

Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Justice Antonin Scalia died, does not have much of a history ruling on abortion issues, and the contentious subject was one of the first topics broached during the question-and-answer session of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democrat to question Gorsuch, immediately followed up, citing the importance of the issue since, she said, President Trump “said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe.”

“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,” Gorsuch told Feinstein, clarifying his position on precedent. “What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.”


Feinstein asked if Gorsuch considered Roe v. Wade “super precedent” – a decision that cannot be overturned.

“It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that,” Gorsuch answered."

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Sounds like another resounding defeat for the anti-abortion lobby.

Providing we can believe him...


See what I mean when I say liberalism almost always wins in the long run?

Sweet Baby Jesus--this has got to be pissing off the Reich wing Evangelical section of the Party who have always insisted that their chozen candidates campaign on overturning Roe V Wade--LOL They believed that Trump would nominate a judge that would do just that, and would overturn Gay marraige at the same time. Many of them are single issue voters, and their single issue was Roe V Wade.

They were scared to death who Hillary Clinton would have nominated to be a SCOTUS. Well it turns out that Hillary Clinton, Diane Fienstein, Chuck Schumer & Barack Obama voted for Gorsuch to be a district court judge under G.W. Bush in 2006
Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Democrats should have no problems at all with confirming Gorsuch.

Roe V Wade is here to stay.

from a practical standpoint, Roe is probably here to stay. But nothing prevents a future congress and president from passing law that would limit its application or allow each state to decide.

The idea that any law is here "forever" is naïve.

No Roe v Wade is here to stay. The U.S. Supreme court is the law of the land, and they are there to protect the individual's rights.

While we have a lot of IDIOT Republican governors that will sign off on sonogram requirements etc. they are always overturned by a Federal District court judge.

Example: Mike Pence who wasted Indiana's taxpayer dollars signing an abortion bill into law, which put the taxpayers of that state at risk for class action law suits, then they paid out money to defend his bill in court and it was immediately slapped down by a Federal District Court one year later. Here we have Mike Pence putting the taxpayers of his state at risk, over his "personal" religious beliefs. A governor's primary responsibilty is to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars and refuse to sign these kind of bills that put his constituents AT RISK.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us/federal-judge-blocks-indiana-abortion-law.html?_r=0

One woman Republican Governor in Oklahoma refused to sign off on an state abortion bill because she understood the risk.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/us/oklahoma-governor-mary-fallin-vetoes-abortion-bill.html

In fact a Bush 1 appointee, a Federal District Court judge in Texas was interviewed--and stated he is tired of all these abortion bills that he is having to constantly overrule. When he was asked why do you suppose you get so many of them--he stated: Because most Republican state legilators are men, and they really have no business meddling into women's issues.

You are missing three things:

1 - abortion is not enumerated as an individual right anywhere in the Constitution.

2 - Roe V. Wade was/is bad law.

3 - States have rights according to the 10th Amendment.

In la la land, perhpas.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If you don't care how other people live, why are you insisting on butting into the most intimate and personal aspects of their lives? Why do you insist that a medical procedure is murder? PP hasn't "murdered" anyone. Why are you such a fricken idiot and drama queen?

When Redfish and Chuz get asked such questions, this is the look you get in return:

the central question is: is an unborn child a human being? if yes, then abortion is murder, if no, then its a medical procedure.

We disagree on that central question. Will we ever agree, probably not.

You are not judge of any of that. Our judiciary makes those decisions.

What qualifies a lawyer to decide when life begins?

What qualifies you?

I believe life begins at conception.. I never once claimed to know. Nobody knows.. t hat is my point.

Do try and keep up.

 

[12icer]

The scope and meaning of a law are NOT set by the Supreme court, their job is ONLY to decide if it is or is NOT constitutional. The idea given that they "clarify" it is why we have judicial political problems like the ninth circuit.

 

[yiostheoy]

"Judge Neil Gorsuch said Tuesday the controversial Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is “precedent” and acknowledged the ruling had been reaffirmed “many times.”

Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Justice Antonin Scalia died, does not have much of a history ruling on abortion issues, and the contentious subject was one of the first topics broached during the question-and-answer session of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democrat to question Gorsuch, immediately followed up, citing the importance of the issue since, she said, President Trump “said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe.”

“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,” Gorsuch told Feinstein, clarifying his position on precedent. “What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.”


Feinstein asked if Gorsuch considered Roe v. Wade “super precedent” – a decision that cannot be overturned.

“It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that,” Gorsuch answered."

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Sounds like another resounding defeat for the anti-abortion lobby.

Providing we can believe him...


See what I mean when I say liberalism almost always wins in the long run?

Sweet Baby Jesus--this has got to be pissing off the Reich wing Evangelical section of the Party who have always insisted that their chozen candidates campaign on overturning Roe V Wade--LOL They believed that Trump would nominate a judge that would do just that, and would overturn Gay marraige at the same time. Many of them are single issue voters, and their single issue was Roe V Wade.

They were scared to death who Hillary Clinton would have nominated to be a SCOTUS. Well it turns out that Hillary Clinton, Diane Fienstein, Chuck Schumer & Barack Obama voted for Gorsuch to be a district court judge under G.W. Bush in 2006
Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Democrats should have no problems at all with confirming Gorsuch.

Roe V Wade is here to stay.

from a practical standpoint, Roe is probably here to stay. But nothing prevents a future congress and president from passing law that would limit its application or allow each state to decide.

The idea that any law is here "forever" is naïve.

No Roe v Wade is here to stay. The U.S. Supreme court is the law of the land, and they are there to protect the individual's rights.

While we have a lot of IDIOT Republican governors that will sign off on sonogram requirements etc. they are always overturned by a Federal District court judge.

Example: Mike Pence who wasted Indiana's taxpayer dollars signing an abortion bill into law, which put the taxpayers of that state at risk for class action law suits, then they paid out money to defend his bill in court and it was immediately slapped down by a Federal District Court one year later. Here we have Mike Pence putting the taxpayers of his state at risk, over his "personal" religious beliefs. A governor's primary responsibilty is to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars and refuse to sign these kind of bills that put his constituents AT RISK.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us/federal-judge-blocks-indiana-abortion-law.html?_r=0

One woman Republican Governor in Oklahoma refused to sign off on an state abortion bill because she understood the risk.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/us/oklahoma-governor-mary-fallin-vetoes-abortion-bill.html

In fact a Bush 1 appointee, a Federal District Court judge in Texas was interviewed--and stated he is tired of all these abortion bills that he is having to constantly overrule. When he was asked why do you suppose you get so many of them--he stated: Because most Republican state legilators are men, and they really have no business meddling into women's issues.

You are missing three things:

1 - abortion is not enumerated as an individual right anywhere in the Constitution.

2 - Roe V. Wade was/is bad law.

3 - States have rights according to the 10th Amendment.

In la la land, perhpas.

I had a knock down drag out fight with a feminist on this.

She could not show me where in the Constitution it says anything about abortion, or women, or anything about their vaginas.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When Redfish and Chuz get asked such questions, this is the look you get in return:

the central question is: is an unborn child a human being? if yes, then abortion is murder, if no, then its a medical procedure.

We disagree on that central question. Will we ever agree, probably not.

You are not judge of any of that. Our judiciary makes those decisions.

What qualifies a lawyer to decide when life begins?

What qualifies you?

I believe life begins at conception.. I never once claimed to know. Nobody knows.. t hat is my point. Do try and keep up.

I wanted you to come out and say that you did not know, and you finally did that. Thank you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The scope and meaning of a law are NOT set by the Supreme court, their job is ONLY to decide if it is or is NOT constitutional. The idea given that they "clarify" it is why we have judicial political problems like the ninth circuit.

Too bad you are not in charge then.

 

[yiostheoy]

Unless one party can get a supermajority in the House AND Senate and win the White House all at the same time, AND the 50 states' legislatures, an abortion or anti abortion amendment cannot be ratified.

And unless the SCOTUS becomes constituted with 5 strict constructionist jurists, Roe V. Wade will never be overturned.

Right now Kennedy and Roberts are swing voters, and Gorsuch looks like he will vote swing too.

My personal view is that Roe should be overturned. This would give the States their rights back.

Then Calif and NYS can go pro-abortion while Texas and Fla go anti.

Robert's your uncle and Fanny's your aunt -- FREEDOM !!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sweet Baby Jesus--this has got to be pissing off the Reich wing Evangelical section of the Party who have always insisted that their chozen candidates campaign on overturning Roe V Wade--LOL They believed that Trump would nominate a judge that would do just that, and would overturn Gay marraige at the same time. Many of them are single issue voters, and their single issue was Roe V Wade.

They were scared to death who Hillary Clinton would have nominated to be a SCOTUS. Well it turns out that Hillary Clinton, Diane Fienstein, Chuck Schumer & Barack Obama voted for Gorsuch to be a district court judge under G.W. Bush in 2006
Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Democrats should have no problems at all with confirming Gorsuch.

Roe V Wade is here to stay.

from a practical standpoint, Roe is probably here to stay. But nothing prevents a future congress and president from passing law that would limit its application or allow each state to decide.

The idea that any law is here "forever" is naïve.

No Roe v Wade is here to stay. The U.S. Supreme court is the law of the land, and they are there to protect the individual's rights.

While we have a lot of IDIOT Republican governors that will sign off on sonogram requirements etc. they are always overturned by a Federal District court judge.

Example: Mike Pence who wasted Indiana's taxpayer dollars signing an abortion bill into law, which put the taxpayers of that state at risk for class action law suits, then they paid out money to defend his bill in court and it was immediately slapped down by a Federal District Court one year later. Here we have Mike Pence putting the taxpayers of his state at risk, over his "personal" religious beliefs. A governor's primary responsibilty is to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars and refuse to sign these kind of bills that put his constituents AT RISK.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us/federal-judge-blocks-indiana-abortion-law.html?_r=0

One woman Republican Governor in Oklahoma refused to sign off on an state abortion bill because she understood the risk.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/us/oklahoma-governor-mary-fallin-vetoes-abortion-bill.html

In fact a Bush 1 appointee, a Federal District Court judge in Texas was interviewed--and stated he is tired of all these abortion bills that he is having to constantly overrule. When he was asked why do you suppose you get so many of them--he stated: Because most Republican state legilators are men, and they really have no business meddling into women's issues.

You are missing three things:

1 - abortion is not enumerated as an individual right anywhere in the Constitution.

2 - Roe V. Wade was/is bad law.

3 - States have rights according to the 10th Amendment.

In la la land, perhpas.

I had a knock down drag out fight with a feminist on this.

She could not show me where in the Constitution it says anything about abortion, or women, or anything about their vaginas.

Which is meaningless.

This is why we have a judiciary, so we don't have people like you enforcing on others that their civil liberties are not civil liberties.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gorsuch, once again, is not Scalia channeled.

He is far more like Roberts.

 

[yiostheoy]

The scope and meaning of a law are NOT set by the Supreme court, their job is ONLY to decide if it is or is NOT constitutional. The idea given that they "clarify" it is why we have judicial political problems like the ninth circuit.

Too bad you are not in charge then.

We The People are in charge.

But we must agree in order to change anything.

And some things like Amendments require a super-majority.

 

[yiostheoy]

from a practical standpoint, Roe is probably here to stay. But nothing prevents a future congress and president from passing law that would limit its application or allow each state to decide.

The idea that any law is here "forever" is naïve.

No Roe v Wade is here to stay. The U.S. Supreme court is the law of the land, and they are there to protect the individual's rights.

While we have a lot of IDIOT Republican governors that will sign off on sonogram requirements etc. they are always overturned by a Federal District court judge.

Example: Mike Pence who wasted Indiana's taxpayer dollars signing an abortion bill into law, which put the taxpayers of that state at risk for class action law suits, then they paid out money to defend his bill in court and it was immediately slapped down by a Federal District Court one year later. Here we have Mike Pence putting the taxpayers of his state at risk, over his "personal" religious beliefs. A governor's primary responsibilty is to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars and refuse to sign these kind of bills that put his constituents AT RISK.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us/federal-judge-blocks-indiana-abortion-law.html?_r=0

One woman Republican Governor in Oklahoma refused to sign off on an state abortion bill because she understood the risk.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/us/oklahoma-governor-mary-fallin-vetoes-abortion-bill.html

In fact a Bush 1 appointee, a Federal District Court judge in Texas was interviewed--and stated he is tired of all these abortion bills that he is having to constantly overrule. When he was asked why do you suppose you get so many of them--he stated: Because most Republican state legilators are men, and they really have no business meddling into women's issues.

You are missing three things:

1 - abortion is not enumerated as an individual right anywhere in the Constitution.

2 - Roe V. Wade was/is bad law.

3 - States have rights according to the 10th Amendment.

In la la land, perhpas.

I had a knock down drag out fight with a feminist on this.

She could not show me where in the Constitution it says anything about abortion, or women, or anything about their vaginas.

Which is meaningless.

This is why we have a judiciary, so we don't have people like you enforcing on others that their civil liberties are not civil liberties.

And this is why the SCOTUS has become stuffed with activist jurists -- 4 of them at the moment -- until Ginsberg croaks -- then there will only be 3.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ok

 

[JakeStarkey]

The scope and meaning of a law are NOT set by the Supreme court, their job is ONLY to decide if it is or is NOT constitutional. The idea given that they "clarify" it is why we have judicial political problems like the ninth circuit.

Too bad you are not in charge then.

We The People are in charge.

But we must agree in order to change anything.

And some things like Amendments require a super-majority.

The judiciary agrees for us in lieu of inability to pass amendments.

 

[Borillar]

"Judge Neil Gorsuch said Tuesday the controversial Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is “precedent” and acknowledged the ruling had been reaffirmed “many times.”

Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Justice Antonin Scalia died, does not have much of a history ruling on abortion issues, and the contentious subject was one of the first topics broached during the question-and-answer session of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democrat to question Gorsuch, immediately followed up, citing the importance of the issue since, she said, President Trump “said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe.”

“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,” Gorsuch told Feinstein, clarifying his position on precedent. “What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.”


Feinstein asked if Gorsuch considered Roe v. Wade “super precedent” – a decision that cannot be overturned.

“It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that,” Gorsuch answered."

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Sounds like another resounding defeat for the anti-abortion lobby.

Providing we can believe him...


See what I mean when I say liberalism almost always wins in the long run?

Sweet Baby Jesus--this has got to be pissing off the Reich wing Evangelical section of the Party who have always insisted that their chozen candidates campaign on overturning Roe V Wade--LOL They believed that Trump would nominate a judge that would do just that, and would overturn Gay marraige at the same time. Many of them are single issue voters, and their single issue was Roe V Wade.

They were scared to death who Hillary Clinton would have nominated to be a SCOTUS. Well it turns out that Hillary Clinton, Diane Fienstein, Chuck Schumer & Barack Obama voted for Gorsuch to be a district court judge under G.W. Bush in 2006
Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Democrats should have no problems at all with confirming Gorsuch.

Roe V Wade is here to stay.

from a practical standpoint, Roe is probably here to stay. But nothing prevents a future congress and president from passing law that would limit its application or allow each state to decide.

The idea that any law is here "forever" is naïve.

No Roe v Wade is here to stay. The U.S. Supreme court is the law of the land, and they are there to protect the individual's rights.

While we have a lot of IDIOT Republican governors that will sign off on sonogram requirements etc. they are always overturned by a Federal District court judge.

Example: Mike Pence who wasted Indiana's taxpayer dollars signing an abortion bill into law, which put the taxpayers of that state at risk for class action law suits, then they paid out money to defend his bill in court and it was immediately slapped down by a Federal District Court one year later. Here we have Mike Pence putting the taxpayers of his state at risk, over his "personal" religious beliefs. A governor's primary responsibilty is to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars and refuse to sign these kind of bills that put his constituents AT RISK.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us/federal-judge-blocks-indiana-abortion-law.html?_r=0

One woman Republican Governor in Oklahoma refused to sign off on an state abortion bill because she understood the risk.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/us/oklahoma-governor-mary-fallin-vetoes-abortion-bill.html

In fact a Bush 1 appointee, a Federal District Court judge in Texas was interviewed--and stated he is tired of all these abortion bills that he is having to constantly overrule. When he was asked why do you suppose you get so many of them--he stated: Because most Republican state legilators are men, and they really have no business meddling into women's issues.

You are missing three things:

1 - abortion is not enumerated as an individual right anywhere in the Constitution.

2 - Roe V. Wade was/is bad law.

3 - States have rights according to the 10th Amendment.

1. The 9th amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

2. Sez you.

3. People have rights too. How would state by state abortion laws work? Would a woman escaping from restrictive laws in say Alabama to get an abortion in California be charged with murder upon return to Alabama? Would women be denied their right to travel freely until they have given birth? Would they be closely monitored and examined to be certain they are carrying? If they have a miscarriage, will they be criminally charged? Where does it end?

 

[Borillar]

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the **** do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

Yeah, a free and open society where women are chattel and forced to undergo trans-vaginal ultrasounds One where if the majority decided that gays should be stoned to death, that'd be just peachy

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the **** do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

You are the one thinking you can dictate what the entire society must believe. All we want is freedom to choose. You are the one trying to force some rigid orthodoxy upon prospective parents.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish is the redfascist indeed.

 

[yiostheoy]

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the **** do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

Yeah, a free and open society where women are chattel and forced to undergo trans-vaginal ultrasounds One where if the majority decided that gays should be stoned to death, that'd be just peachy

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the **** do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

You are the one thinking you can dictate what the entire society must believe. All we want is freedom to choose. You are the one trying to force some rigid orthodoxy upon prospective parents.

The states have rights.

If they want to treat their women as chattel and they can get away with it having the women voters vote on it too, then sure !!

Abortion should be a choice of the state legislature not Wash DC.

10th Amendment.

 

[yiostheoy]

The scope and meaning of a law are NOT set by the Supreme court, their job is ONLY to decide if it is or is NOT constitutional. The idea given that they "clarify" it is why we have judicial political problems like the ninth circuit.

Too bad you are not in charge then.

We The People are in charge.

But we must agree in order to change anything.

And some things like Amendments require a super-majority.

The judiciary agrees for us in lieu of inability to pass amendments.

You JakeStarkey and Schumer and Feinstein should get a room together and boink each other in a threesome.

I can tell you love each other.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why do you loons cheer legislation that allows murdering the most innocent of all? Freaking ghouls

Why do fools like you reject free contraception to all fertile females, and oppose age appropriate sexual education as part of a comprehensive health care curriculum? Are you stupid or brainwashed?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the **** do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

Yeah, a free and open society where women are chattel and forced to undergo trans-vaginal ultrasounds One where if the majority decided that gays should be stoned to death, that'd be just peachy

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the **** do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

You are the one thinking you can dictate what the entire society must believe. All we want is freedom to choose. You are the one trying to force some rigid orthodoxy upon prospective parents.

The states have rights.

If they want to treat their women as chattel and they can get away with it having the women voters vote on it too, then sure !!

Abortion should be a choice of the state legislature not Wash DC.

10th Amendment.

Foolish. So the poor are out of luck and the well off can buy contraceptives, and when necessary hop on a flight to an enlightened state.

Damn, you people are dumb!