Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Supreme Court aspirant Sonia Sotomayor said Tuesday that she considers the question of abortion rights is settled precedent and says there is a constitutional right to privacy.

The federal appeals court judge was asked at her confirmation hearing Tuesday to state how she felt about the landmark Roe versus Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1973.

Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee that "there is a right of privacy. The court has found it in various places in the Constitution." She said this right is stated in the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and in the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the law. She declined to say pointblank if she agreed with the high court's precedent on this volatile issue.

Answering a question later from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Sotomayor said that "all precedents of the Supreme Court I consider settled law," subject to the possibility of subsequent reversal, such as when the court last month renounced a previous precedent in a reverse discrimination case. It ruled 5-4 on the side of white firefighters from New Haven, Conn., who challenged a decision by the city to discard the results of an employee test in which they fared better than minorities who took the examination.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD99EAK600

I didn't expect her to say anything else, but the reality is that this answer that the "abortion right" is settled law can mean anything.

Roe held that "abortion" was a "fundamental" privacy right which cannot be impinged without the government showing (i) a compelling interest and (ii) no less restrictive means of accomplishing that compelling interest than the law being challenged. In other words, restrictions on abortion were subject to the highest degree of constitutional review, that being the "strict scrutiny" test.

Is Roe the "settled law" to which she was referring?

Even though Casey claimed it was "reaffirming" Roe, the reality is that the Court in Casey essentially reclassified the "abortion right" as something less than a "fundamental right" and removed the "abortion right" from those rights subjected to the highest degree of constitutional review. Instead of being subject to "strict scrutiny," abortion restrictions since Casey have been reviewed under something called the "undue burden" test -- a level of constitutional review which really had no prior existence until Justice O'Connor utilized it in the abortion context.

So is Casey the settled law to which she was referring?

And if Casey is it, what of the "undue burden" test, which Justice Scalia has appropriately criticized as virtually without meaning in its application -- in that it essentially holds that the people have a legtimate interest in limiting the availability of abortion and may enact laws which do so, so long as the law is not too successful.

Bless her ever-lovin' heart. Welcome, Justice Sotomayor. Long may you live. Fvck Conks.

Didn't both Presidential candidates in the last election MOL say the same thing?

One could have said the same of Plessy versus Ferguson as well, no?

Pwns wrote:One could have said the same of Plessy versus Ferguson as well, no?

And, like "separate but equal," the "abortion right" is a constitutional fiction ... entirely contrived by the court without any genuine textual support.

One of these days, I would like a Supreme Court nominee to be able to say what many, many constitutional scholars say: that Roe was wrong, unprincipled, and without any real constitutional legitimacy.

If you read Roe and Griswold, it is almost comical. That fundamental, constitutional rights are found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights! Read those decisions. That's actually what they say! (No, I am not kidding).

For goodness sake, why would the drafters of the Constitution hide "fundemantal rights" in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of the specific, fundamental guarantees? Justice Douglas and Justice Blackmun thought the drafters of the Constitution were like the Easter Bunny, hiding fundamental rights in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of specific guarantees. Are you friggin' kidding me?

You have to be pretty arrogant to think like that.

Truth be told, the reasoning of Roe is offensive and arrogant -- the imperial Court at its worst.

Now, don't be stinky, Joe. Remember, YOU will never have an abortion.

It's nice to see she's so open-minded.

AZGrizFan wrote:It's nice to see she's so open-minded.

It's refreshing, ain't it, peter snot?

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:It's nice to see she's so open-minded.

It's refreshing, ain't it, peter snot?

Cap'n Cat wrote:Now, don't be stinky, Joe. Remember, YOU will never have an abortion.

The issue isn't legalized abortion. The issue is whether there is a right protected by the constitution to an abortion.

I respect the outcome of the democratic process on the issue, whether that law reflects my values or not.

Whether, and to what extent, abortion is legal is an issue which our founders intended to be resolved like most issues in a constitutional democracy -- by the will of the people on a state-by-state basis.

AZGrizFan wrote:It's nice to see she's so open-minded.

So did you say the same thing about John Roberts when he said the same thing at his confirmation hearing?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/John_R ... ortion.htm

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:It's nice to see she's so open-minded.

So did you say the same thing about John Roberts when he said the same thing at his confirmation hearing?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/John_R ... ortion.htm

Nope. Somebody didn't make it front page news.

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:It's nice to see she's so open-minded.

So did you say the same thing about John Roberts when he said the same thing at his confirmation hearing?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/John_R ... ortion.htm

ROBERTS: "I think the initial question for the judge confronting an issue in this area, you don't go straight to the Roe decision. You begin with Casey, which modified the Roe framework and reaffirmed its central holding."



So not really. What Roberts said indicated that he thought that abortion was a mere liberty interest, protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment (and thus subject to restrictions). He was speaking about Casey being "settled law."

From what I can see, Sotomayor meant Roe was "settled law."

Same words, different meanings.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Now, don't be stinky, Joe. Remember, YOU will never have an abortion.

The issue isn't legalized abortion. The issue is whether there is a right protected by the constitution to an abortion.

I respect the outcome of the democratic process on the issue, whether that law reflects my values or not.

Whether, and to what extent, abortion is legal is an issue which our founders intended to be resolved like most issues in a constitutional democracy -- by the will of the people on a state-by-state basis.

Disagree vehemently on the state-by-state thing. Creates inequities state-to-state. The Constitutional is fluid. My opinion only.

Regardless, love you much, Jose'!

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
So did you say the same thing about John Roberts when he said the same thing at his confirmation hearing?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/John_R ... ortion.htm

Nope. Somebody didn't make it front page news.

I am sure I did...

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Nope. Somebody didn't make it front page news.

I am sure I did...

Go find it. I'll wait.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
I am sure I did...

Go find it. I'll wait.

You find it, Limbaugh!

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
I am sure I did...

Go find it. I'll wait.

Just look on ***

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Go find it. I'll wait.

Just look on ***

Nice try.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Go find it. I'll wait.

You find it, Limbaugh!

Fuck you. I don't believe he made it front page news. He says he did. If he wants to know so badly, HE can find it.

Go pick on Alpha.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

You find it, Limbaugh!

Fuck you. I don't believe he made it front page news. He says he did. If he wants to know so badly, HE can find it.

Go pick on Alpha.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

You find it, Limbaugh!

Fuck you. I don't believe he made it front page news. He says he did. If he wants to know so badly, HE can find it.

Go pick on Alpha.

I did, but will not link to it (that site). The rest of the thread devolved into a AZGRIZ/Tod pissing match on the media...

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Fuck you. I don't believe he made it front page news. He says he did. If he wants to know so badly, HE can find it.

Go pick on Alpha.

I did, but will not link to it (that site). The rest of the thread devolved into a AZGRIZ/Tod pissing match on the media...

You mean Z's rants on the liberal media myth? To go along with leg-humping the Reagan Myth??

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Fuck you. I don't believe he made it front page news. He says he did. If he wants to know so badly, HE can find it.

Go pick on Alpha.

I did, but will not link to it (that site). The rest of the thread devolved into a AZGRIZ/Tod pissing match on the media...

Chicken.