Pro-abort senator grills Gorsuch: Is Roe v Wade ‘super precedent’?
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 21, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch refused to label Roe v. Wade "super precedent" today as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, attempted to grill him on abortion.
Throughout day two of his confirmation hearing, Gorsuch repeatedly refused to make "campaign promises" about which cases he would support and which he wouldn't, saying judges shouldn't be like politicians. He indicated there are a number of factors that go into analyzing precedent.
"Do you view Roe has having super precedent?" asked Feinstein.
Roe v. Wade "has been reaffirmed many times. I can say that, yes," said Gorsuch.
Earlier in the hearing, he said of Roe v. Wade, "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."
Conservatives on Twitter pointed out that "super precedent" isn't a real legal term – and precedents have been unjust before.
"Super-precedent" is not tested on Bar Exams because it doesn't exist outside of senators' minds— Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) March 20, 2017
By Diane Feinstein's logic, Dred Scott would have been a super-precedent, just like Roe.— Andrew Mullins (@AndrewWMullins) March 21, 2017
Precedent is fallible.
What I want to know is how the Constitution can be malleable and yet Roe be "super-precedent," an inviolable and un-changeable principle.— T. Kyle Bryant (@TKyle) March 21, 2017
Feinstein suggested on Monday that Gorsuch shouldn't be confirmed because of his belief that "the intentional taking of a human life by private persons is always wrong."
Finished reading? You can make a difference, too!
Support pro-life and pro-family journalism with a donation today!
View CommentsClick to view or comment.