Cotton Says ‘Time for Roe v Wade to Go’ After Trump Names Him as Potential Supreme Court Justice

[cloistered]

The majority of SCOTUS was appointed by Republican presidents as the time of the decision. Last I checked (1st. Obama admin) is has been majority Republican-appointed since.

 

[Victoria33]

The majority of SCOTUS was appointed by Republican presidents as the time of the decision. Last I checked (1st. Obama admin) is has been majority Republican-appointed since.

This is true as far as that goes but the Senate confirms and advises; so appointees must pass the Senate and the Democrats controlled the Senate for a very long time, late '50s to '90s, all or most of the time, and additionally, I’m not sure if one went back to 1965, abortion was the hot button issue it is today, going back to 1965, 1960, 1970. Was it even in debate back then?

We know the Democrats would not let Robert Bork be confirmed and they tried there hardest to keep Brett Kavanaugh from being confirmed.

 

[CradleRC58]

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,”
John Roberts

Members of the SCOTUS are not partisan.

 

[cloistered]

Agree. I guess my point was that the strategy of some to overturn RvW by electing Republican presidents doesn’t seem to be working after over 40 years of trying.

 

[Victoria33]

Agree. I guess my point was that the strategy of some to overturn RvW by electing Republican presidents doesn’t seem to be working after over 40 years of trying.

If one is serious about overturning Roe V Wade, in the '80s, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden by the way, did all to block Robert Bork’s nomination. They aren’t Republicans.

With the Democrats, now, Infanticide is talked about, they block anti-Infanticide legislation:

Democrats Vote to Support Infanticide, Oppose Caring for Babies Born Alive After Abortion - LifeNews.com

It always puzzles me when people go after the Republicans on abortion.

Some Republican states have very low abortion rates, some Red States have only one abortion clinic even.

If I don’t vote for pro-lifers, Democrat or Republican, I’m not helping the cause. And by the way, the present environment really doesn’t pertain to Bush and Reagan as much. Things were a lot different.

 

[Nepperhan]

So you think the justices who overturned Plessy v Ferguson were activist judges?

I don’t think the Plessy decision was tested in SCOTUS and upheld like the Roe v. Wade decision has been. So, consequently they are of different stripe, judicially speaking. In this way any judge (or attorney) who speaks of overturning Roe v. Wade is really backing judicial activism in a manner not experienced with the Plessy decision.

Plus, In the Brown decision the court only impliedly overturned Plessy, it did not state it was doing so.

 

[Annie]

In the Brown decision the court only impliedly overturned Plessy , it did not state it was doing so.

They accepted the case and ruled in direct opposition to Plessy. Pretty heavy complication there…

. In this way any judge (or attorney) who speaks of overturning Roe v. Wade is really backing judicial activism in a manner not experienced with the Plessy decision.

I have said here on CAF that the justices would need the right case with the right arguments to be able to overturn or perhaps merely imply an overturning by ruling in complete opposition to Roe. That would no more be activism than ruling in opposition to Plessy was.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We know the Democrats would not let Robert Bork be confirmed

And we know that Republicans would not even give Merrick Garland a hearing in the Senate. It seems the Republicans were more effective at blocking Garland than the Democrats were at blocking Bork, since Bork at least got a hearing.

 

[PaulinVA]

I have said here on CAF that the justices would need the right case with the right arguments to be able to overturn or perhaps merely imply an overturning by ruling in complete opposition to Roe. That would no more be activism than ruling in opposition to Plessy was.

That’s true. So, what’s the argument? What’s the case?

We know that many cases before the Court are “test cases” that have been picked to conform to a certain legal argument and wend their way up to the Supremes.

I haven’t heard a legal theory yet. People say Roe was decided incorrectly, but not how to overturn it.

One way is a personhood amendment. That won’t happen. What else is there?

I ask this because without the legal theory, nine conservative justices couldn’t overturn Roe.

 

[Annie]

I am neither a lawyer nor a legal historian; how can I answer those questions?

On the other hand, I wonder how many people thought the same before the Brown decision?

So I think it is important for me to do what I can, which is my small part in getting constructivist justices on the court, so that when the case and the argument appear, there will be good justices on the court who will not allow their politics to override a just ruling.

 

[Victoria33]

And we know that Republicans would not even give Merrick Garland a hearing in the Senate. It seems the Republicans were more effective at blocking Garland than the Democrats were at blocking Bork, since Bork at least got a hearing.

Did the Republicans break any Senate rule?

And the Democrats were supporting abortion rights versus Bork. Good point made.

 

[PaulinVA]

I am neither a lawyer nor a legal historian; how can I answer those questions?

Well, the point is that no one has advanced a legal theory on how to overturn Roe. So, why vote for Trump if you think you’ll get another Supreme and overturn Roe, when overturning Roe is unlikely?

On the other hand, I wonder how many people thought the same before the Brown decision?

Separate but equal being inherently unequal was as plain as day to most people in the 50s.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

And we know that Republicans would not even give Merrick Garland a hearing in the Senate. It seems the Republicans were more effective at blocking Garland than the Democrats were at blocking Bork, since Bork at least got a hearing.

Did the Republicans break any Senate rule?

Did the Democrats break any rules when they borked Bork?

 

[Nepperhan]

I have said here on CAF that the justices would need the right case with the right arguments to be able to overturn or perhaps merely imply an overturning by ruling in complete opposition to Roe. That would no more be activism than ruling in opposition to Plessy was.

It would be more activist. The Plessy decision just sat there like and anomaly and was not addressed again by the court, to my knowledge. However, Roe has been subject to repeated test cases, those which made it to the Supreme Court and those which did not. It has been upheld and its parameters have been deliminated. In that manner, overturning Roe would be far more activist than overturning the 60 year old Plessy decision.

 

[Annie]

In that manner, overturning Roe would be far more activist than overturning the 60 year old Plessy decision.

I have read enough quotes from lawyers saying Roe was a bad decision to believe it can be overturned. A bad decision by an activist court may be ruled differengly by a constructivist court.

Well, the point is that no one has advanced a legal theory on how to overturn Roe. So, why vote for Trump if you think you’ll get another Supreme and overturn Roe, when overturning Roe is unlikely?

That’s fine, I won’t dispute whether or not you are right. But when the right case and argument come along, I want constructivist justices in place to rule on it. (I may have already said that…)

 

[WingedHussar]

Excellent, it is not time to take office but to take power.

 

[Annie]

Excellent, it is not time to take office but to take power

To whom are you responding?

 

[WingedHussar]

The initial post.

 

[Ridgerunner]

have read enough quotes from lawyers saying Roe was a bad decision to believe it can be overturned. A bad decision by an activist court may be ruled differengly by a constructivist court.

While she supports abortion, even Justice Ginsberg said Roe was poorly reasoned.

 

[Ender]

Did the Democrats break any rules when they borked Bork?

Well, they lied about him, and launched a despicable attack on him personally that was based on deceit and deception. So, no, apparently that’s not against the rules of the Senate. He was the precursor that set the pattern for the attacks that would appear with regularity (see: Thomas, Kavanaugh).