Here's What GOP-Nominated Justices Said About Roe v. Wade During Their Senate Hearings

1 week ago 70

WASHINGTON (AP) — In 1 signifier oregon another, each Supreme Court nominee is asked during Senate hearings astir his oregon her views of the Roe v. Wade abortion-rights ruling that has stood for a half-century.

Now, a draught sentiment obtained by Politico suggests that a bulk of the tribunal is prepared to onslaught down the landmark 1973 decision, leaving it to the states to find a woman’s quality to get an abortion.

A look astatine however the Republican-nominated justices, present a 6-3 majority, responded erstwhile asked by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for their views connected the case:

AMY CONEY BARRETT, 2020:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, past the apical Democrat connected the committee, asked Barrett: “So the question comes, what happens? Will this justness enactment a instrumentality that has important precedent now? Would you perpetrate yourself connected whether you would oregon would not?”

“Senator, what I volition perpetrate is that I volition obey each the rules of look decisis,” Barrett replied, referring to the doctrine of courts giving value to precedent erstwhile making their decisions.

Barrett went connected to accidental that she would bash that for “any contented that comes up, termination oregon thing else. I’ll travel the law.“

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked Barrett whether she viewed Roe v. Wade arsenic a “super precedent.” Barrett replied that the mode the word is utilized successful “scholarship” and the mode she had utilized it successful an nonfiction was to specify cases truthful good settled that radical bash not earnestly propulsion for its overruling.

“And I’m answering a batch of questions astir Roe, which I deliberation indicates that Roe doesn’t autumn successful that category,” Barrett said.

BRETT KAVANAUGH, 2018:

It was Feinstein who besides asked Kavanaugh, “What would you accidental your presumption contiguous is connected a woman’s close to choose?”

“As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By ‘it,’ I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. They person been reaffirmed galore times. Casey is precedent connected precedent, which itself is an important origin to remember,” Kavanaugh said.

Casey was a 1992 determination that reaffirmed a law close to termination services.

Kavanaugh went connected to accidental that helium understood the value of the issue. “I ever effort and I bash perceive of the existent satellite effects of that decision, arsenic I effort to do, of each the decisions of my tribunal and of the Supreme Court.”

NEIL GORSUCH, 2017:

With President Donald Trump’s archetypal Supreme Court nomination, it was Sen. Charles Grassley. R-Iowa, who asked point-blank: “Can you archer maine whether Roe was decided correctly?

Gorsuch replied: “I would archer you that Roe v. Wade, decided successful 1973, is simply a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance involvement considerations are important there, and each of the different factors that spell into analyzing precedent person to beryllium considered. It is simply a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed successful Casey successful 1992 and successful respective different cases. So a bully justice volition see it arsenic precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy arsenic attraction of precedent similar immoderate other.”

JOHN ROBERTS, 2005:

The precocious Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked of the now-chief justice, who was a national appeals tribunal justice erstwhile nominated: “In your confirmation proceeding for circuit court, your grounds work to this effect, and it has been wide quoted: ‘Roe is the settled instrumentality of the land.’ Do you mean settled for you, settled lone for your capableness arsenic a circuit judge, oregon settled beyond that?”

Roberts replied: “It’s settled arsenic a precedent of the court, entitled to respect nether principles of look decisis. And those principles, applied successful the Casey case, explicate erstwhile cases should beryllium revisited and erstwhile they should not. And it is settled arsenic a precedent of the Court, yes.”

SAMUEL ALITO, 2006:

Specter, who was unabashedly supportive of Roe v. Wade, observed during Alito’s hearings that the “dominant issue” was the “widespread concern” astir Alito’s presumption connected a woman’s close to choose. The contented arose due to the fact that of a 1985 connection by Alito that the Constitution does not supply for the close to an abortion, Specter declared.

“Do you hold with that connection today, Judge Alito?” Specter asked.

“Well, that was a close connection of what I thought successful 1985 from my vantage constituent successful 1985, and that was arsenic a enactment lawyer successful the Department of Justice successful the Reagan administration.

“Today if the contented were to travel earlier me, if I americium fortunate capable to beryllium confirmed and the contented were to travel earlier me, the archetypal question would beryllium the question that we’ve been discussing, and that’s the contented of look decisis,” Alito said. “And if the investigation were to get beyond that point, past I would attack the question with an unfastened mind, and I would perceive to the arguments that were made.”

“So you would attack it with an unfastened caput notwithstanding your 1985 statement?” Specter asked.

“Absolutely, senator. That was a connection that I made astatine a anterior play of clip erstwhile I was performing a antithetic role, and arsenic I said yesterday, erstwhile idiosyncratic becomes a judge, you truly person to enactment speech the things that you did arsenic a lawyer astatine anterior points successful your ineligible vocation and deliberation astir ineligible issues the mode a justice thinks astir ineligible issues.”

Alito was the writer of the leaked draught opinion, which declares the ruling successful Roe v. Wade was “egregiously incorrect from the start.”

CLARENCE THOMAS, 1991:

The precocious Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, recalled chairing a committee proceeding and listening to women maimed by “back-alley abortionists.” He said helium was “terrified if we crook backmost the timepiece connected ineligible termination services.”

In questioning Thomas the legislator said: “I privation to inquire you erstwhile again, of appealing to your consciousness of compassion, whether oregon not you judge the Constitution protects a woman’s close to an abortion?”

Thomas replied: “I conjecture arsenic a kid we heard the hushed whispers astir amerciable abortions and individuals performing them successful little than harmless environments, but they were whispers. It would, of course, if a pistillate is subjected to the agony of an situation similar that, connected a idiosyncratic level, certainly, I americium very, precise pained by that. I deliberation immoderate of america would be.”

Thomas declined though to springiness his sentiment “on the issue, the question that you asked me.”

“I deliberation it would undermine my quality to beryllium successful an impartial mode connected an important lawsuit similar that,” helium said.

Read Entire Article