Six-judge decision to end constitutional right to abortion – Roe V. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Canceling important judgments like Casey – drew new attention to what they said on the topic during their confirmation trial.
Following the standard game book of most nominees, they both avoided directly stating how they would rule in any given situation, and generally stuck to expressing their confidence in the importance of the paradigm.
Here is a sample:
Judge Barrett did not specify how he would vote to overturn decisions protecting abortion rights. She can rule.
“What I will do is abide by all the rules of the observation resolution, and if the question arises before me as to whether Casey or any other case should be overturned, I will abide by the observation law by using it as a court. It reveals, uses all factors, reliability, work efficiency, undermined by the facts behind the law, all consistent factors, ”he said. His confirmation hearing in October 2020. “If any problem comes up, I promise I will do it for abortion or anything else. I will follow the law.
Judge Kavanagh repeatedly questioned how he would judge Rowe, but he refused Answer directly That decision was “the right law”
Row We Wade “Has been reaffirmed many times as an important precedent of the Supreme Court. But then planned – And this is the point I consider important. Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed Rowe and did so in the light of decisive factors, “he said in 2018.” So Casey is now becoming a role model. In particular he reconsidered it, used observation factors, and decided to reaffirm it. That makes Casey a role model. “
Judge Korsch, President Donald J. Trump’s first appointment to the Supreme Court, he declined to say how he would rule on abortion.
“Row V. decided in 1973. Wade is the forerunner of the U.S. Supreme Court. This has been reaffirmed. Reliance interest considerations are important there, and all other factors analyzing the precedent must be considered, “he told senators in March 2017.” This is a precursor to the US Supreme Court. This was reaffirmed in 1992 by Casey and several other cases. So a good judge would consider this a precursor to the US Supreme Court.
He added, “A judge begins to wet his hand about whether they like it or not or whether that precedent sends the wrong signal. This will make the American people realize that there is a connection between the personal opinions of the judge and the work of the judge.
During his confirmation hearing in January 2006, Mr. Alito said he approaches the issue of abortion. An open mind.
“Roe v. Wade is an important role model for the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973 and has been in the books for a long time, ”he said.
But he stopped calling for landmark judgment settlement law.
“If it’s exhausted and it can not be reconsidered, it’s one thing,” he told senators on the Judiciary Committee. “It simply came to our notice then, And all the factors I mentioned came into effect, including reassurance and all of this, which is a precedent. That way. “
He added, “This has been challenged. This has been reaffirmed. But that is an issue now involved in lawsuits at all levels.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. knocked She stood in abortion During his confirmation hearing in 2005, he said he would one day have to judge the issue before him.
“I think it’s a shock to the legal system when you break a precedent. The pioneer plays a key role in improving stability and balance. This is not enough – the court has stressed this many times. It is not enough if you think the previous decision was wrong,” he said. “It simply did not answer the question. Raises the question of. You look at other factors, such as the expectations of the settlement, the fairness of the court, whether a particular precedent is viable, or whether a precedent is distorted by subsequent developments. All of those factors determine whether a paradigm should be reconsidered under scrutiny decision policies.
He continued, “Today I have tried as carefully as possible to avoid giving any assurances about cases that may come before the court.”
Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 1991, Judge Thomas Marginalized Announcing his views on abortion, Rowe declined to say whether the decision was made correctly.
“The Supreme Court, of course, in the case of Roe v. Wade, has found an interest in a woman’s right – a fundamental interest in a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy,” he said. “I do not think I can maintain my impartiality as a member of the judiciary at this time and can comment on that particular case.”
“Senator, the question you asked me was, I discussed the content of the movie Roe V Wade, the end of the movie Roe V. Wade, the end of the movie Roe V. Wade. And, ‘My answer to you is that I do not.’