Err, no, not really

Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the onus was on the nominee to explain his position on the issue.

“Given president Trump’s promise to appoint a supreme court justice that would seek to overturn Roe v Wade, we need to know whether Judge Gorsuch would do just that,” Northup said.

“Our constitution guarantees a woman’s right to safe, legal abortion. Any effort to gut those protections would harm the rights and health of women for generations to come.”

The Supreme Court found, in the penumbra of said constitution, the right to abortion. And while it’s rare it is possible for said Court to change its mind on such matters.

The Constitution itself most certainly says no such thing of course.

8 comments on “Err, no, not really

  1. “The Trump nominee has been a critic of “Chevron deference,” a doctrine that gives administrative agencies significant latitude with how they interpret federal statutes. “

    Firing that dozy Obama appointed to Atty Gen was clearly just the start. Watch out, Augean Stables!

  2. “Our constitution guarantees a woman’s right to safe, legal abortion.

    If she really believes this, there ought to be no problem. The dominant intellectual trend in legal thought in the US has been one form of strict originalism or other. That is, the Founders meant what they said and they said what they meant.

    So all the candidate needs to do is assert that he believes the Constitution says what it says and he will enforce the plain meaning of the words. Which is what I believe this latest candidate does claim to believe. If this baby-killing w!tch thinks that abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution she should have no objection to him at all.

  3. This is of course an attributed quote in what is, unusually for the Guardian, an excellent, detailed and fair article.

    As regards the quoted claim; the Supreme has certainly interpreed the consistutional that way but, go en when it was written, I doubt very much indeed it itself does provide for the “right to safe, legal abortion”. Indeed whilst legal aboration might result from Wade -v- Roe, I would doubt very much that “safe” is mandated.

  4. Wade-Roe was government by judicial putsch. The Constitution is clear: abortion is a matter for the people or the states, not for the federation.

  5. The article links through to a typical Guardianista opinion piece by Lucia Graves. Her piint: the Republicans filibustered Obama, which was just terrible and awful and. .. so the Democrats should now do the same.

    One big difference though: the Republicans were the majority in both houses. It looked in the eyes of the electorate like the Senate asserting it’s rights over a lame duck president based on its own electoral mandate. The Democrats are the minority; they will just look like obstructionists standing in the way of a Newlyn elected president.

    You go girl, you score those own goals.

  6. Wade-Roe was government by judicial putsch.

    As was the gay marriage decision: they couldn’t get the numbers to vote for it, so they made it a “human right” and got the court to rule it that way. Which is why abortion is still a festering issue in the US.

  7. “The Trump nominee has been a critic of “Chevron deference,” a doctrine that gives administrative agencies significant latitude with how they interpret federal statutes. “

    And therein lies the source of many of the problems the USA faces. Lazy politicians don’t think through what they want from legislation and just paint a broad picture and then tell the agencies to get on with it and being bureaucracies they get to write 1000s of pages of rules. This is how the EPA became so powerful.

  8. If Gorsuch can help to row back the current rule by bureaucratic ukase then he will have done more good that a dozen of his predecessors. If, in tandem, Trump can fillet these out-of-control agencies then he’ll deserve to end up on Mt. Rushmore.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.