Abortion has been a hot topic so far in
Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing, resulting in several memorable exchanges
between the (hopefully) future justice and Judiciary Committee Democrats.
Dianne Feinstein has been the senator
most focused on the abortion issue, questioning
whether Gorsuch would consider overturning Roe
v. Wade, to which Gorsuch replied that he could make no
guarantees on how he’d rule in any future case, but that “Once a case is settled, that adds to
the determinacy of the law. What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer
a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.”
“[Roe] has been reaffirmed many times, I
can say that,” he said later. He also said that if President Trump had asked
him to overturn Roe, “I would have
walked out the door.”
Some
conservatives might be concerned by this, unhappy with any response that
doesn’t amount to, “I will definitely push for the abolition of Roe the moment I am confirmed.” But this
would be pretty stupid from a political standpoint, and also, as Gorsuch and
others (including the late Justice Scalia) have said, not an attribute one
should look for in a good judge. Judges should always wait until hearing the
facts of a case before making any final decision.
I was also
curious what Samuel Alito, an unquestionably fine conservative justice, had to say on abortion during his own
confirmation hearing a decade ago: “What
I have said about Roe is that if it were -- if the issue were to come before
me, if I’m confirmed and I’m on the Supreme Court and the issue comes up, the
first step in the analysis for me would be the issue of stare decisis. And that
would be very important. If I were to get beyond that, I would approach that
question the way I approach every legal issue that I approach as a judge, and
that is to approach it with an open mind and to go through the whole judicial
process, which is designed, and I believe strongly in it, to achieve good
results, to achieve good decision-making.”
And: “Roe v. Wade is an important
precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. So it’s been on the
books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of occasions. The
Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision; sometimes on the merits;
sometimes—in Casey—based on stare decisis.”
Those responses
are, substantively, little different from what Gorsuch has offered on the same
issue over the last couple days. Of course, no one can predict with 100%
accuracy how any given judicial nominee will rule once on the bench—see Souter,
David, and Roberts, John. Confirmation hearings have become more about partisan
maneuverings and avoiding verbal traps laid by the opposing side than a window
into judicial thought. But Gorsuch’s statements over the last few days, on
abortion and other issues, is fully in line with those of past conservative
nominees.
No comments:
Post a Comment