The Conservative majority’s decision to end the constitutional right to abortion—overturning landmark provisions such as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey – To highlight again what they said about it during the installation hearings.
Following the standard rules of the game for most candidates, they all avoided directly stating how they judged in either case, and usually stuck to expressing their belief in the importance of the former, the legal dogma of the “stare decision.”
Here is a sample:
Pressed on whether to vote to overturn the abortion rights protections decisions, Justice Barrett offered no hint of how she would rule.
“What I will abide is that I will abide by all the rules of staring, and that if a question arises before me as to whether Casey or any other case should be rescinded, I will follow the law of staring, and apply it as a court that makes it clear, and applies all the factors, dependability, applicability, and undermining by subsequent facts In law, just all the normative factors,” she said during the confirmation hearing in October 2020. I promise to do that in any case that arises, abortion or anything else. I will follow the law.”
Judge Kavanaugh, who was repeatedly asked how he would rule Roe, declined to answer directly whether the decision was “lawfully correct.”
Raw vs. Wade “An important precedent for the Supreme Court that has been emphasized many times. But then it is planned – And this is the point I want to make I think is important. Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed Roe and did so by looking at critical factors,” he said in 2018. So Casey is now set a precedent. It’s not like it’s just a regular case that was decided and never reconsidered, but Casey specifically reconsidered it, applied stare factors, and decided to reconfirm it. This makes Casey a precedent in a precedent.”
Judge Gorsuch, President Donald J. Trump’s top court nominee, declined to say how he would rule on abortion.
“Roe v. Wade, which was ruled in 1973, is a precedent for the US Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. Interest-dependence considerations are important there, and all other factors that go into analyzing the precedent must be taken into account,” he told senators at March 2017. “It is a US Supreme Court precedent. It was reaffirmed in Casey 1992 and in several other cases. So any good judge would consider it a US Supreme Court precedent worthy of prior treatment as any other.”
He added, “For the judge to begin to nod his hand as to whether he likes or dislikes this or that precedent, that would send the wrong signal. It would send a signal to the American people that the judge’s personal opinions have something to do with the judge’s work.”
Mr Alito, during his January 2006 confirmation hearing, said he would approach the abortion issue with an open mind.
“Roe v. Wade is an important precedent for the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it’s been in the books for a long time.”
But he stopped short of describing this historic ruling as a stable law.
“If it’s settled means it can’t be reconsidered, that’s one thing,” he told senators on the Judiciary Committee. “If the settlement is done, it means that it is a precedent that is entitled to be respected like a stare.”And the And all the factors I mentioned come into play, including the reaffirmation and all that, it is a protected precedent, which is entitled to respect under the squinting doctrine. this way.”
He added, “It has been appealed. It has been reaffirmed. But it is an issue that is now being litigated at all levels.”
While appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 1991, Justice Thomas avoided publicizing his views on abortion and refused to say whether Roe had made the appropriate decision.
“The Supreme Court, of course, in Roe v. Wade found an interest in a woman’s right – as a fundamental interest of a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy,” he said. “I don’t think I can at this time maintain my impartiality as a member of the judiciary and comment on that specific case.”
“Senator, your question to me was, have you discussed the contents of Roe v. Wade, and the outcome in Roe v. Wade, do I have today an opinion, a personal opinion, on the outcome of Roe v. Wade,” he added, “and my answer to you is that I do not.” .