Neat! We know what the Supreme Court debate is all about - the debate, that is to say, over who shall take retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy's seat.
Declares Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican moderate from Maine, whose vote could prove essential to confirmation of whatever nominee the White House puts forward: "A candidate for this important post who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me. That would indicate an activist agenda that I don't want to see a judge have. And that would indicate to me a failure to respect precedent."
Let's start with the right to abortion, a piece of Supreme Court craftsmanship from 1973.
A Supreme Court nominee unpledged to last-ditch defense of the Supreme Court's 1973 job of judicial engineering won't get Sen. Collins' vote.
If the court said it - by golly - that's it! Dissenters, be off!
In Brown, the court said dismissively, "Plessy v. Ferguson is overruled." Minds change; the world moves on.
Were the Supreme Court suddenly to sweep Roedown the back steps, with the household dust and dead insects, there would occur such tumult as the political process is not well fitted for.
A likelier near-term prospect than reversal is gradual acceptance by the court of state laws making abortion harder and more expensive to achieve.
It is enough to know the present stakes are altitudinous: far, far less about Roe vs. Wade than about prospects for the survival of American freedoms.
https://spectator.org/roe-v-wade-and-the-confusion-of-sen-collins/
Declares Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican moderate from Maine, whose vote could prove essential to confirmation of whatever nominee the White House puts forward: "A candidate for this important post who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me. That would indicate an activist agenda that I don't want to see a judge have. And that would indicate to me a failure to respect precedent."
Let's start with the right to abortion, a piece of Supreme Court craftsmanship from 1973.
A Supreme Court nominee unpledged to last-ditch defense of the Supreme Court's 1973 job of judicial engineering won't get Sen. Collins' vote.
If the court said it - by golly - that's it! Dissenters, be off!
In Brown, the court said dismissively, "Plessy v. Ferguson is overruled." Minds change; the world moves on.
Were the Supreme Court suddenly to sweep Roedown the back steps, with the household dust and dead insects, there would occur such tumult as the political process is not well fitted for.
A likelier near-term prospect than reversal is gradual acceptance by the court of state laws making abortion harder and more expensive to achieve.
It is enough to know the present stakes are altitudinous: far, far less about Roe vs. Wade than about prospects for the survival of American freedoms.
https://spectator.org/roe-v-wade-and-the-confusion-of-sen-collins/
No comments:
Post a Comment