Sotomayor: Roe v. Wade is “settled law”
Today Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) asked Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor questions on the right to privacy and Roe v. Wade:
Read the transcript of the exchange on page 2.
I previously wrote that Americans United for Life’s president Charmaine Yoest will be the sole pro-lifer testifying at the Sotomayor hearings. She responded today…
This question of Roe as settled law goes to a central point in the testimony we’ll be providing on Thursday morning: Roe is not settled law. The holding in Roe establishing the right to abortion has been substantially modified in subsequent cases – even Casey while reaffirming the central holding of Roe, modified the standard of review applied to abortion regulations. As Roe and its successors continue to be repeatedly reconsidered, it is anything but settled law.
Transcript of exchange during Senate confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor:
Kohl: All right. Judge, the court’s ruling about the right to privacy in Griswold laid the foundation for Roe v. Wade. In your opinion, is Roe settled law?
Sotomayor: The court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed the court holding of Roe. That is the precedent of the court and settled, in terms of the holding of the court.
Kohl: Do you agree with Justices Souter, O’Connor, and Kennedy in their opinion in Casey, which reaffirmed the core holding in Roe?
Sotomayor: As I said, I – Casey reaffirmed the holding in Roe. That is the Supreme Court’s settled interpretation of what the core holding is and its reaffirmance of it.
[Transcript per the Los Angeles Times via the AUL blog.]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m envisioning a 5 year-old Sotomayer sticking their fingers in their ear and go “Lalalalalala! I can’t hear you!”
Someone should remind Judge Sotomayor and the Senators that once upon a time, Dred Scott v. Sandford (the infamous Dred Scott case) was “settled law.” Until, by the grace of God, President Lincoln, the 14th Amendment, and the Slaughter-House Cases took it out of the law. Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court itself NEVER OVERRULED Dred Scott.
Eventually moral judgment prevailed over slavery and applied the protection of the US Constitution to all human beings born here or brought here, and put an end to the barbaric views that made human beings “chattel.” In the same way, eventually moral judgment will prevail over abortion, applying the protection of the US Constitution to all human beings conceived here by US citizens, brought here in their mothers’ wombs (and for as long as necessary, those brought here in vitro), and ending the barbaric view that makes them “nothing more than a clump of cells” subject to destruction by their mothers or by the state.
So, in other words, Sotomayor holds the same position as Chief Justice Roberts & Samuel Alito? Thus, we know that, like them, she is pro-choice.
Sadly, no surprise, there.
Bravo, Bill. I totally agree. Roe vs. Wade is as bad a decision by the Supreme Court as the Dred Scott decision was. I don’t see Roe as “settled law” by any means.
I meant, of course, “Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court itself NEVER OVERTURNED Dred Scott.”
And I meant to finish that paragraph with, “So much for expecting justice for the weakest members of society from the Supreme Court of the United States.” With small apology to Clarence Darrow, justice has nothing to do with what goes on in a courtroom, and often enough these days has precious little to do with what comes out of a courtroom.
Plessy v. Ferguson was ‘settled law.’
What are the implications of something being settled? Is ANYTHING ever settled? Maybe Marbury v. Madison; the idea of it coming up for debate makes my head spin. ;) But we still talk about freedom of speech — the nitty-gritty where’s and when’s, and sometimes what’s. I feel like saying that something is settled is just a cop-out, a reason not to discuss it further. Just two weeks ago I read a fascinating article on competing theories about gravity — thank goodness the people smart enough to come up with those don’t consider the matter settled. I mean, I’m a borderline imbecile, so I’m not going to come up with anything new on the subject of gravity, or economics or calculus or even my area of obsession and alleged expertise, Old English — but at least someone’s out there trying.
A year ago I worked on a one-man show about Thurgood Marshall, which centered on Brown v. Board of Education. People clung to the idea of separate-but-equal; they pumped money into those black schools, to desperately try to make them equal enough to remain separate; Marshall worried he’d lose the case. It’s easy to see history as having been written in the present, everything unfolding without suspense as we know it will. On opening night the audience’s disapproval of the disapproval-worthy aspects of the era leading up to the Civil Rights movement was tangible; you could feel everyone united, sighing in their seats, and it felt good, to all be in it together like that. I remember being unsettled in the aftermath, at the post-show celebration, trying to picture something like separate but equal as being up for debate rather than “settled” — or, perhaps, “settled” rather than up for debate (I wonder which is worse). Trying to picture some of those people being on the “wrong” side, rolling their eyes at the poignant moments instead of smiling knowingly with everyone else. I wonder: what will future generations think of us? What will my grandchildren think of people like me?
I am always willing to consider the possibility that I’m wrong, even if it’s something that’s allegedly settled — the alternative, to not consider, terrifies me. What good has ever come of being closed to discussion?
I wish I could just erase all of that and instead say, “The danger of viewing history as the natural progression of things that could not have been any other way is that it leads you to view the present in the same light.” Why do these things always occur to me one billion words later?
At this point, frankly, I am more concerned with getting rid of abortion than getting rid of Roe v. Wade. Making it illegal is great, yes, but should we not focus on helping improve something beyond getting rid of the Supreme Court’s ruling? I mean, honestly, we need to be just as passionate about ending abortion…even in a world where it is not legal.
For example, get passionate about ending abortion in the Dominican Republic, where it’s illegal. If Sotomayor believes in improving women’s and children’s rights, then she is pro-life in my book. Because to me, the definition of pro-choice is one who expands abortion whereas the definition of pro-life is one who expands human rights. De facto, so long as she supports decisions that help ease the plights that people face, then she is pro-life. :)
If Roe v Wade is ‘settled law’, then the question is a moot point, so why ask it?
Both sides of the issue know it is not ‘settled’ in the ‘law’ or in the public conscience.
If it were settled, you would not be reading what I am writing on this web site.
yor bro ken
Presumably “settled law” can become unsettled. That would have to do with the nature of governance, right?
Shorter Sotomayor: “Shut the F*** Up!”
Vannah, anyone who would call the legalization of the brutal slaughter of humans is not pro-life. And there will always be abortion, no matter how much wealth and freedom you lavish on people–rich women, free women, completely in control of thier lives and confident in their abilities, get abortions. It’s a disease of tolerance for this madness, not of living conditions or rights for the born.
Louise – Yes, I believe you are correct. Roe is in fact settled law. I don’t exactly understand what Ms. Yoest is talking about. Once the ruling is passed, it’s settled law.
But it’s law for crying out loud. Settled law really means very little when it is changed.
I like her answers, and I hope she ends up ruling rationally and humanely on the abortion related cases – that is – I hope she votes with us.