Sup Ct Abortion Precedent Canard Doesn’t Fly

Maybe most pathetic reaction to the leaked Sup Ct draft overturning Roe is Dem leaders’ claiming Trump’s nominees “lied” about their abortion views to Congress. WSJ simple: “Justices did not promise to uphold abortion precedents,” esp one as bad as Dred Scott.

“Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer accused ‘several’ of the ‘conservative Justices’ of having ‘lied to the US Senate, ripped up the Constitution and defiled both precedent and the Supreme Court’s reputation … the insinuation is that Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett promised Congress they wouldn’t touch Roe .. check the tapes … the truth is available to anyone willing to call up the C-Span archives.” So who’s lying now?

As if necessary to explain in a “Precedent For Dummies,” the editors explain what Justice Alioto’s draft opinion explains at length: That is, while “stare decisis is essential, for instance, in restraining judicial hubris … the Court has long recognized in other cases it is ‘not an inexorable command’ and is ‘at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution.’” Might we add stare decisis is EVEN MORE at its weakest when you have a foolish opinion like Dred Scott on the books, which maintained slaves were property without the usual human rights, and Roe v Wade, which maintained an unborn yet very much living child is the mere property of the mother with no right to live under any circumstances & even though earlier precedents had for nearly two centuries recognized such health, safety and welfare decisions were to be decided by state legislatures, not any branch of the federal government.

Davd Soul