Monday’s Politico sensational article about Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s draft major opinion in which he stated “We hold that Roe & Casey must be overruled” has sparked protests and pearl-clutching from The Usual Suspects. Some of these actions have provoked violence. There have been many calls for action. Leaders of the Democratic Party tried to make conditions for impeachment hearings, in which conservative Supreme Court Justices will hear their testimony.
Previous reports indicated that Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a speech Tuesday that some of the conservative Justices on the Supreme Court – Justices he did not specifically name – “have lied to the U.S. Senate.” In an official joint statement issued by both Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) just a few hours after the news broke, the same claim was made:
Several conservative Justices, who are in no way accountable to the people, have lied to the Senate, ripped up the Constitution, and defiled precedent and the Court’s reputation—all at the expense of women who could soon be stripped of bodily autonomy and constitutional rights.
This attack seems so ridiculous it defies logic. These are panicked Democrats who will do whatever is necessary to protect a woman’s unborn child’s rights.
Democrats would need to prove that conservative Justices lied in impeachment hearings. This would not be easy as Alito and other Justices were intentionally vague and cautious in their language.
Professor Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Law School, explained it better by using receipts as support.
Take Alito. Alito was a Justice Department lawyer, who in 1985 stated that the Constitution doesn’t protect abortions.
It is important to understand that there are many variations.
Senator Arlen Smith (R.–Pa.) asked Alito if he agreed to today’s statement. Alito replied in confirmation non speak. Alito also mentioned that he was a Justice Department lawyer at the time. We have been discussing the question of stare decisis. If the analysis went beyond this point, I would be open to the idea.
This is not a comprehensive description of how every jurist approaches case precedent.
Re: Gorsuch’s hearing
I was present at the Gorsuch hearing. He was widely considered a Roe skeptic.
Gorsuch responded when Gorsuch was asked about Roe. He said, “Senator,” Roe v. Wade had decided that a fetus does not qualify as a person under Section Fourteenth Amendment.
Durbin asked Gorsuch whether he would accept this. Gorsuch responded, “Senator. I accept the law.” Gorsuch claimed that Roe was the established precedent. Gorsuch responded, “Senator, I accept the law.”
Turley explained Kavanaugh’s answer in a similar manner while suggesting Barrett was more open with others about her judicial philosophy toward Roe v. Wade.
Turley’s tweet regarding inconvenient facts concerning the “lying” allegation caused panic. Their inability to see that facts don’t care about their feelings is overshadowed by their notorious tendency of bringing up the race card whenever they have nothing to contribute to a discussion.
It is not surprising that the Senate Majority Leader chose to make a mockery of conservative Justices as he responded to the story about the draft majority opinion. This is despite Pelosi’s public threats to the Justices starting in March 2020. This would completely destroy this country and cause irreparable damage to the Senate confirmation process and the SCOTUS.
Perhaps Schumer will reconsider his incendiary rhetoric about this when he realizes the demeaning effect it would have on Democrats if Republicans did the same.
