0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Washington (CNN) Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade."I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/01/politics/susan-collins-supreme-court/index.html
So, I take from this..... that if the nominee is not "hostile" to Roe v. Wade.... that the GOP will then have her vote? Who the hell is she kidding? We've seen her voting record.
As long as the candidate does not have a record on the issue, and states that he/she is unable to answer questions re: abortion because they may be required to rule on them, it should be OK.
In other words, Collins won't support a pick who believes in following the Constitution of the United States of America - an oath that she swore to uphold.
The Constitution of the United States says that abortion is legal.
Collins said that she suggested Trump broaden his search beyond the list of 25 candidates that the White House released in November. The senator told ABC that Trump has added five judges to that list.The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday.http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/395048-collins-trump-should-not-feel-bound-by-pre-existing-list-of-supreme-court
She is signaling not opposition to the President but rather her view that she will support a nominee who respects precedent.
Whoever is nominated will face this question, and Sen. Collins is signaling that, to win her vote, he or she must answer it.
She is signaling not opposition to the President but rather her view that she will support a nominee who respects precedent. Whoever is nominated will face this question, and Sen. Collins is signaling that, to win her vote, he or she must answer it.
No, it doesn't. The right to life is an unalienable right.
This again.
Ah, yes. Precedent. That's what kept segregation alive in this country for over half a century. Precedent. How dare the Brown justices overturn the "precedent" of Plessy. How dare them look to the Constitution as their basis for ruling instead of simply choosing to ignore the Constitution while embracing "precedent".
Ah, yes. Precedent. That's what kept segregation alive in this country for over half a century. Precedent. How dare the Brown justices overturn the "precedent" of Plessy. How dare them look to the Constitution as their basis for ruling instead of simply choosing to ignore the Constitution while embracing "precedent". So whoever is nominated must explain why it would have been better to rule in favor of the Topeka Board of Education instead of doing what the Constitution of the United States of America says. Good luck with that.
Where, exactly, does it say that?
Marbury v. Madison.
That's a court ruling.... based on the "interpretation" by judges.... on what the US Constitution guarantees. But "abortion is legal" is nowhere IN the constitution, nor was it ever intended to be.
