Should pro-lifers who voted for the president because he promised to nominate a judge who would overturn Roe give in the fear that good things never happen in Washington?
Progressives are not known to highly value tradition, nor do they much care what prior generations thought. It is thus a curious spectacle when every few years, after a Republican president nominates someone to the Supreme Court, these same progressives enter some Burkean trance, sanctimoniously wax on about the importance of precedent and judicial stability, and force the nominee to genuflect to the doctrine of stare decisis as if it were a fundamental law of nature.
So it goes with the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch. Specifically commenting on Roe v. Wade at his nomination hearing, Gorsuch explained, “[the opinion] is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992, and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent, like any other case.”
The testimony mirrors what Gorsuch has been telling senators privately, notably agreeing with Sen. Susan Collins’s statement that five current justices’ disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision is not sufficient grounds to overturn it.
So should conservatives, particularly pro-lifers who voted for the president for the sole reason that he promised to nominate a judge who would overturn Roe, give in to their inner fear that, in the end, good things will never happen in Washington?
Stare Decisis Is a Consideration, Not a SuretyRead the rest from Colin LeCroy HERE.
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.