Because Of Abortion Senate Dems Want To Torch This Long-Established Standard For SCOTUS Nominees

|
|
Posted: Jul 09, 2018 7:20 PM
Because Of Abortion Senate Dems Want To Torch This Long-Established Standard For SCOTUS Nominees

Pro-abortion forces have a strangle hold on congressional Democrats. That can only explain why Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) demands to know how the President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee feels about abortion. Yeah, this is Roe panic. It’s a way to get progressives enthused ahead of the midterms. Conservatives will be for sure. While there is no border wall, and the GOP once again stumbled on immigration, there is plenty for Republicans to get excited about for 2018—and this SCOTUS fight is just a shot of adrenaline. The Supreme Court drove conservatives to the polls for Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans to do so again for ’18. 

Schumer’s demand exposes two things. One, the rules don’t apply to liberals because [insert total crap explanation here] and they’re Democrats. Second, they know whoever is picked tonight will be confirmed. Hence, the break from precedent of not asking judge’s about any case that might come before them, known as the Ginsburg Rule. After Neil Gorsuch was picked to fill the vacancy left by the great late Justice Antonin Scalia, Schumer said in February of 2017, “There is a grand tradition that I support that you can't ask a judge who’s nominated for a -- or a potential judge who is nominated -- for a judgeship about a specific case that might come before them.”

Yet, that was when the ideological balance of the court wasn’t at risk. Some Senate Democrats were ready to fight tooth and nail. Others were willing to keep their powered dry for moments like this, when the court could have a solid conservative majority. Still, precedent is precedent. We didn’t make up these rules. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, noted the mian examples of the Ginsburg Rule being invoked from Justices Elena Kagan, Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. Even a question from Grassley to Sotomayor elicited the same answer concerning this rule. As Ginsburg said during her hearing, “A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process” (via Grassley Senate):

KAGAN

SOLICITOR GENERAL ELENA KAGAN: “[T]he Senate has a very significant role to play in picking Supreme Court Justices...and part of that is getting some sense, some feel of how a nominee approaches legal issues...But I would say that there are limits on that. [S]ome of the limits I talked about in [a law review] article...I mean, that article makes very clear that it would be inappropriate for a nominee to talk about how she will rule on pending cases or on cases beyond that that might come before the Court in the future.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 6/29/2010)

Q: “Was Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), an example of the Supreme Court properly reinterpreting the Constitution in light of its timeless principles?” …

ELENA KAGAN RESPONSE: “I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of Roe v. Wade other than to say that it is settled law entitled to precedential weight.  The application of Roe to future cases, and even its continued validity, are issues likely to come before the Court in the future.” (Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan: Response To Questions For The Record, P.2, 2010)

KAGAN: “…inappropriate for a nominee to ever give any indication of how she would rule in a case that would come before the Court.  And I think, too, it would be inappropriate to do so in a somewhat veiled manner by essentially grading past cases.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, Pg.80, 6/28-30 &7/1/2010)

SOTOMAYOR

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): “Well, then maybe it would be fair for me to ask you what is your understanding of the constitutional limitations then on government entity -- any government entity taking land for public purpose?”

JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR: “...As I've indicated to you, opining on a hypothetical is very, very difficult for a judge to do. And as a potential justice on the Supreme Court but, more importantly, as a Second Circuit judge still sitting, I can't engage in a question that involves hypotheses.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009)

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: “What my experience on the trial court and the appellate court have reinforced for me is that the process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind. It's the process of not coming to a decision with a prejudgment ever of an outcome, and that reaching a conclusion has to start with understanding what the parties are arguing, but examining in all situations carefully the facts as they prove them or not prove them, the record as they create it, and then making a decision that is limited to what the law says on the facts before the judge.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009)

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “My question to the chief justice and now to you is: do you agree with the direction the Supreme Court has moved in more narrowly, interpreting congressional authority to enact laws under the Commerce Clause? Generally, not relating to any one case.”

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: “No, I know. But the question assumes a prejudgment by me of what's an appropriate approach or not in a new case that may come before me as a Second Circuit judge or, again, if I'm fortunate enough to be a justice on the Supreme Court. So it's not a case I can answer in a broad statement.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009)

BREYER

JUDGE STEPHEN BREYER: “Let us imagine, if I am lucky and if you find me qualified and vote to confirm me, I will be a member of the Supreme Court, and, as a member of that Court, I will consider with an open mind the cases that arise in that Court. And there is nothing more important to a judge than to have an open mind and to listen carefully to the arguments...I will try very hard to give you an impression, an understanding of how I think about legal problems of all different kinds. At the same time, I do not want to predict or commit myself on an open issue that I feel is going to come up in the Court.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/12/1994)

FORMER SEN. STROM THURMOND (R-SC): “Judge Breyer, it is likely that Justice Blackmun is most widely known to the public as the author of Roe v. Wade. What was your impression of his majority opinion in that landmark decision? In particular, give us your thoughts on where he draws the line at different points during pregnancy as it relates to the State's interest in the regulation of abortion-related services? For instance, do you agree that the first trimester of pregnancy is distinctive and that the State should not be able to prohibit abortion during that period?”

JUDGE BREYER: “You are asking questions, Senator, that I know are matters of enormous controversy...The questions that you are putting to me are matters of how that basic right applies, where it applies, under what circumstances. And I do not think I should go into those for the reason that those are likely to be the subject of litigation in front of the Court.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/12/1994)

ROBERTS

JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS: “It's a matter of great importance not only to potential Justices but to judges. We're sensitive to the need to maintain the independence and integrity of the court. I think it's vitally important that nominees, to use Justice Ginsburg's words, ‘no hints, no forecasts, no previews.’ They go on the Court not as a delegate from this committee with certain commitments laid out and how they're going to approach cases, they go on the Court as Justices who will approach cases with an open mind and decide those cases in light of the arguments presented, the record presented and the rule of law. And the litigants before them have a right to expect that and to have the appearance of that as well. That has been the approach that all of the Justices have taken.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 9/13/2005)

ABC’S TERRY MORAN: “…this week, in an extraordinary statement, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Democrat nominated by President Clinton, took Roberts’s side.”

JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: “Judge Roberts was unquestionably right.” (ABC’s “World News Tonight,” 9/29/2005)

ALITO

JUDGE SAMUEL ALITO: “But the line that I have to draw, and I think every nominee, including Justice Ginsburg, has drawn, is to say that, when it comes to something that realistically could come before the Court, they can’t answer about how they would decide that question. That would be a disservice to the judicial process.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 1/11/2006)

Yet, because of abortion, and Hillary Clinton losing, and due to Trump being president, we must no further politicize the process all in the name of resistance. For progressives, this is a shrug. They hate our government and our Constitution, the latter including provisions that bar them from effectively carrying out key parts of their agenda. Elections have consequences, Chuck. Deal with it.