Posted By James Brown
Hi James:Originally Posted by James Lacey
Absolutely. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and ABC did not lie in the strictest sense of the word. They did what all supreme court nominees have done: duck, dodge, and avoid answering any specific question about how they would rule on Roe v. Wade. However, it doesn't change that many feel duped and will lose confidence in and respect for the court. I've read a good bit of the Alito leaked opinion and many different editorials, both positive and negative. Honestly, it seems like they are reasoning for the desired outcome. Alito's abortion history lesson, in the opinion, for example, appears to be in great dispute. Not to mention, I think it's ridiculous to be deciding questions about the regulation of abortion in 2022 based on what happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago.
Edit: By the way, I get it that historical precedent is vital in constitutional decision-making. My point is, what other healthcare issues do we regulate based on historical precedent? Maybe end-of-life care, but I can't think of much else. Would you not want to relegate your cardiovascular health if you had a rare genetic heart disorder to historical precedent? But I get it. There are ethical and moral viewpoints in play here as well when it comes to regulating abortion.
I was sort of surprised, based upon the testimony relayed in Rod's FactCheck, that the Senators didn't ask any specific questions. I did not read the entire transcripts of course. In the parts I read however, the Senators tended to make speeches, and never got down to asking anything specific, and certainly never followed up. It is all theater anyway, and has been for a long time. At least since Bork.
If a specific question were to be asked it would go like this:
Senator: When Roe v. Wade comes before the Court will you vote to overturn this precedent?
Nominee: I can't say without hearing the case, and I certainly will keep an open mind.
I think two things are true - The justice is hiding the ball, many of them have strong feelings on contentious and well known cases, but the nomination process is structured as theater, and they are playing their part. That said, many justices' views evolve over time, so I believe them when they say that they keep an open mind.
More importantly, the Senator knows that who nominated the justice, whether it was Trump or Biden for KBJ. With respect to Brown-Jackson, no one who is not actively and dishonestly trying to reconstruct history could legitimately feign surprise when she votes in the future in favor of limits on gun ownership (for example). We should know where she probably stands on gun issues because Biden nominated her. We can legitimately be surprised if she votes in favor of gun rights - that sort of shocker happens from time to time. That said, I am 100% confident that KBJ evaded any gun/2nd Amendment questions during her testimony. But we still have our expectations because of who nominated her.
All of that is to say I understand that a lot of people are distressed/angry/furious by the prospect of Roe being overturned. Shame on them however, if they actually feel duped. They were not paying attention. I assume that you yourself do not feel duped? Jim