The judges don’t lie to the Senate

Reaction to the Supreme Court’s reversal Roe v. Wade In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health predicted to be vitriolic and often full of distortion. The Judges did not ban abortion; they say there is no constitutional right to abortion and let the states decide. The majority also do not set other rights to disappear; they clearly say abortion is unique.

Perhaps the most regrettable statement is that the Judges in Dobbs majority lied in confirmation hearings. The fee is that they suggest that Roe v. Wade was an indelible precedent. Consensus on Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said this is grounds for impeachment and shouldn’t be surprised if other Democrats recognize the article.

Thank you Susan Collins and Joe Manchin on Friday who said they feel Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch misled them about the precedent point in their testimony and in their private meetings with the Judges. We were not present at those meetings, but we would be surprised if either Justice came close to making a commitment to Roe.

The reason is the rule of first trial is that you cannot pre-trial a case. Under Article III of the Constitution, judges are limited to hearing cases and controversies, and that means ruling based on facts and laws specific to those cases.

No judge can know what those facts might be before a case, and judges have a responsibility to the parties to consider those facts fairly. A judge who cannot be impartial, or who has reached a conclusion or is biased about a case, is obligated to reuse himself. This is judicial ethics 101.

An authority on this point is no less than the late Progressive Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as she explained in 1993. “It would be wrong if I spoke or previewed in this legislative chamber how I would vote. for questions that the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide,” she said. “A judge under oath that impartially decides cannot make a forecast, not a suggestion, as that would not only show disregard for the specifics of the particular case but also for the entire adjudication process.”

Every Supreme Court nominee since then has followed that guidance from Ginsburg. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who will soon join the Court, attended to every question she was asked about precedent. Our prediction is that she will vote to overturn all of last week’s rulings on religious freedom, guns and abortion if she gets the chance. But that doesn’t mean she lied to the Senate.

The same goes for the conservative Judges’ endorsement records. This is Justice Gorsuch: “Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been re-affirmed. . . . So a good judge would consider it a precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States that deserves to be treated as precedent like any other.”

He added that “If I were to start telling you which is my favorite precedent or which is my least favorite precedent, or if I were to view precedent that way, I would raise my hand and propose to you. litigants that I made up my mind about their case. “

And here’s Justice Kavanaugh: “Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed many times. It was reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992… . So the above precedent is quite important as you think about determined stare in this context.” He made no specific commitment to either case that we’ve seen.Justice Amy Coney Barrett explicitly refuted the idea that Roe was a super precedent. .

Fraudulent claims are especially unfortunate because they claim that the Court is no different from political branches. This damages the credibility of the Court, whether the majority leans left or right. The current majority won’t last forever, perhaps not even for many more years, and Democrats who consider the current Court as political would not be pleased if Republicans made the same statement when their appointees back to the majority.

The fury of the leftist reaction is not merely about guns and abortion. It reflects their grief at losing the Court as a means of achieving policy goals that they could not get through the legislature. The cultural victories they achieved by judicial legislation will now have to be won by persuading voters. We understand their frustration, but they should try democracy for change. They may even win the abortion debate.

The Journal of Editorial Reports: Supreme Court decisions will take charge of our politics. Image: AP / Getty Images Synthesis: Mark Kelly

Copyright © 2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8 The judges don’t lie to the Senate

Mike Fahey is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button