America Faces No Greater Threat Than Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Their Assault to Our Borders Is As Great As Their Assault to Free Speech and Free Elections
Thursday, December 2, 2021
SELF-STYLED 'WISE' LATINA BITCH SOTOMAYER SAYS HOW WILL WE SURVIVE IF WE DON'T BUTCHER BABIES?
Sotomayor Suggests Reversing Roe Will Abort the Court: ‘How Will We Survive?’
Then-Vice President Joe Biden preparing to take the oath of office from Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Jan. 20, 2013. (Photo by Saul Loeb-Pool/Getty Images)
(CNSNews.com) - Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested during oral arguments on Wednesday that the Supreme Court “won’t be able to survive” if it overturns its decisions in Roe vs. Wade and Pennsylvania vs. Casey and upholds a Mississippi law that prohibits abortion after 15 weeks into pregnancy, which is before the unborn child is “viable.”
“What hasn’t been at issue in the last 30 years is the line that Casey drew of viability,” said Sotomayor.
“You want us to reject that line of viability and adopt something different,” she told Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart, who was arguing the case for his state.
“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible?” said Sotomayor.
“It’s what Casey talked about when it talked about watershed decisions,” she said. “Some of them, Brown vs. Board of Education, it mentioned, and this one have such an entrenched set of expectations in our society that this is what the court decided, this is what we will follow, that the—that we won’t be able to survive if people believe that everything, including New York versus Sullivan--
“I could name any other set of rights, including the Second Amendment, by the way,” she continued. “There are many political people who believe the court erred in seeing this as a personal right--as opposed to a militia right.
“If people actually believe that it is all political, how will we survive? How will the court survive?” said Sotomayor.
In Roe v. Wade, which was decided in 1973, the court ruled that abortion was a “right” that a state could not restrict before the unborn child was viable (meaning it could survive outside the womb). In the opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, the court said: “If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.” But in Doe v. Bolton, an opinion issued simultaneously to Roe, the court gutted the power it appeared to give a state to prohibit abortion after viability by defining “health of the mother” to mean anything a doctor said it was.
In Doe, the court stated that a doctor’s “medical judgment” about the health of a woman seeking an abortion “may be exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.”
In the 1992 case of Pennsylvania vs. Casey, the court upheld its decision in Roe v. Wade.
“Regardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances, a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability,” said the court’s opinion in that case.
“We also reaffirm Roe's holding that ‘subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother,’” the court said in Pennsylvania vs. Casey.
From 1973, the year Roe was decided, through 2017, there were 58,177,540 unborn babies aborted in the United States, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Here is a transcript of Justice Sotomayor’s questioning of whether the court would able to survive overturning Roe during today’s oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “Counsel, what hasn’t been at issue in the last 30 years is the line that Casey drew of viability. There has been some difference of opinion with respect to undue burden, but the right of a woman to choose, the right to control her own body, has been clearly set for--since Casey and never challenged.
“You want us to reject that line of viability and adopt something different. Fifteen justices over 50 years have—or I should say 30 since Casey have reaffirmed that basic viability line. Four have said no, two of them members of this court. But fifteen justices have said yes, of varying political backgrounds.
“Now the sponsors of this bill, the House bill, in Mississippi, said we’re doing it because we have new justices. The newest ban that Mississippi has put in place, the six-week ban, the Senate sponsor said we’re doing it because we have new justices on the Supreme Court.
“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible.
“It’s what Casey talked about when it talked about watershed decisions. Some of them, Brown vs. Board of Education, it mentioned, and this one have such an entrenched set of expectations in our society that this is what the court decided, this is what we will follow, that the—that we won’t be able to survive if people believe that everything, including New York vs. Sullivan--I could name any other set of rights, including the Second Amendment, by the way. There are many political people who believe the court erred in seeing this as a personal right--as opposed to a militia right. If people actually believe that it’s all political, how will we survive? How will the court survive?”
Sen. Hawley: 'This Is the Time to Overrule Roe'; 'Let the People Have Their Say'
Oral arguments in a critical abortion case bring protesters to the steps of the US Supreme Court on December 1, 2021. (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)
(CNSNews.com) - It's time to return the abortion issue to the people in the various states, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told Fox News's Laura Ingraham Wednesday night, hours after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging Mississippi's ban on most abortions after 15 weeks.
"This is about democracy, this is about the people of this country actually having a say for the first time in 50 years on this important question," Hawley said:
And listen, this is a moral question. I mean, the abortion issue is a moral issue, and that is exactly why the American people should get to have a say. And nine justices shouldn't be imposing their moral views on the rest of the country, and we can't do anything about it.
So this is about democracy, and it's about returning this issue where it belongs, which is to the American people in the states. The Constitution commits it to the people, the people should have the final say here.
Hawley said the nation has waited 50 years for the right case to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling in which the Supreme Court found a legal right to abortion. In that ruling, the court overstepped its bounds, Hawley said:
"What has destroyed the court's legitimacy in many ways and what has turned the court into a political football is Roe. It is the court legislating from the bench what the rules are going to be for every state in the nation, for every person in the nation."
Hawley noted that "every justice on the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged in past years there is an interest in unborn life. The question is, when does that interest become compelling?" Hawley asked.
"And the answer is, it is compelling throughout the pregnancy, because the unborn child has rights throughout the pregnancy and it's time the court recognized that and got out of the business of imposing their moral views on the rest of the country.
"That's not the court's place, it has badly damaged their legitimacy. It's time to stop that, and it's time to allow the American people to reclaim the basic promise of America, which means that in this country, every person has inalienable rights, and that includes the unborn. They, too, are valuable; they, too, are protected, and it's time to let the people make good on that promise."
During oral arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh clarified that upholding the Mississippi abortion ban would not ban abortion in other states.
Kavanaugh told Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart: "As I understand it, you're arguing that the Constitution's silent and therefore neutral on the question of abortion; in other words, that the Constitution's neither pro-life nor pro-choice on the question of abortion, but leaves the issue for the people of the states or perhaps Congress to resolve through the democratic process. Is that accurate?"
"We're saying it's left to the people, your honor," Stewart replied.
"So if you were to prevail," Kavanaugh asked, "the states -- majority of states or states still could or -- and presumably would continue to freely allow abortion. Many states, some states would be able to do that, even if you prevail under your view, is that correct?"
"That's consistent with our view, your honor," Stewart said. "It's one that allows all interests to have full voice, and many of the abortions we see in certain states that I don't think anybody would think would be moving to change their laws in a more restrictive direction."
Sen. Marshall: The Founding Fathers ‘Valued the Sanctity of Life’
Asked if the Founding Fathers believed in a right to abortion, Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), an obstetrician, said, “I think that they valued the sanctity of life.”
At the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, CNS News asked the senator, “Did the Founding Fathers believe in a right to abortion?”
“I have no idea. I think they were godly men and I think that they valued the sanctity of life,” Marshall replied.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments this week in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case to decide if states can restrict abortion before the point of fetal viability.
According to the standard established in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, no state can place an undue burden on a woman’s ability to get an abortion before her baby is considered viable, or able to survive outside of the womb.
The Mississippi law prevents abortion after a baby has reached 15 weeks of gestation. Fetal viability is considered to occur at 24 weeks, meaning this law violates the standards of the Roe v. Wade and Casey precedent.
However, there has been significant skepticism of basis in the Constitution of the Roe and Casey decisions, with many legal scholars arguing that there is no constitutional foundation at all. Former chief justice of the Supreme Court William Rehnquist argued that Roe’s lack of constitutionality has created a mess for future abortion restrictions and legislation.
“The key elements of the Roe framework – trimesters and viability – are not found in the text of the Constitution or in any place else one would expect to find a constitutional principle,” Rehnquist wrote. “The result has been a web of legal rules that have become increasingly intricate, resembling a code of regulations, rather than a body of constitutional doctrine.”
The Dobbs case gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to overturn the Roe precedent, or at least adjust its standards and return back to the intentions of the Founding Fathers, former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III says.
“Failing to reverse Roe and Casey in a case squarely presenting the question would suggest that the Founders’ views cannot compete with the preferred positions of some special interests,” Meese wrote in a Washington Post commentary published Wednesday.
“For the sake of a republic of laws and not of men, I hope the court will ratify the promise of the Founders’ Constitution,” Meese says.
Josh Hawley: Supreme Court Challenge to ‘Roe v. Wade’ Could Fix ‘Greatest Injustice in Our Lifetimes’
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told Breitbart News a victory in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization might solve the “greatest injustice in our lifetimes” that is Roe v. Wade.
Hawley — a law former clerk to Supreme Court Justice John Roberts and considered a top Constitutional lawyer — said that after hearing the first day of oral arguments that Roe v. Wade is “very much in play.”
Hawley, who was also a former Missouri attorney general, explained that many Supreme Court justices asked “foundational questions” about Roe. He predicted the Supreme Court would rule 6-3 in favor of upholding the Mississippi law.
Hawley told Breitbart News this could be the case that could overturn Roe and solve one of the country’s greatest injustices.
People listen during an anti-abortion rally outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2021, as activists begin to arrive ahead of arguments on abortion at the court in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Hawley explained, “It would mean the reaching of a landmark goal that I mean, frankly, I have to say just personally, that Roe is one of the reasons that the major reason that I went into politics, and I think that’s true for many, many other people. That’s one of the major reasons I was interested in the law. And this is the greatest injustice of our lifetimes.”
The Missouri populist described this potential ruling as “seismic” and could actually turn “down the heat” on the abortion question because it would allow states to make their own laws restricting abortions.
I think you’d see real deliberation for the first time in 50 years, because the public would actually get to weigh in and their voices would actually matter,” he added.
Hawley said, “I just have to say that someone who believes that that row is one of the worst decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court, I think it would be a monumental moral landmark and reverse a great injustice.”
“And after listening to the argument, I believe this could be the case that finally reverses the great injustice of Roe. It may all come down to Amy Barrett,” Hawley wrote Wednesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment