What GOP Justices Have Said About Roe On Senate Committee

Washington (AFP) – In one form or another, every Supreme Court nominee is asked during Senate hearings for his or her views on Roe v. She claimed the right to abortion verdict This is for half a century.

Now, an opinion draft obtained by Politico He suggests that a majority of the court is willing to overturn the landmark 1973 decision, leaving it to the states to determine a woman’s ability to have an abortion.

A look at how Republican-nominated justices, now with a 6-3 majority, responded when members of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked them for their views on the case:

Amy Connie Barrett, 2020:

Senator. Dianne Feinstein of California, then the committee’s top Democrat, asked Barrett, “So the question comes up, What’s going on? Will this justice uphold a law that now has substantive precedent? Will you stick to whether or not you do?”

Barrett replied, “Senator, what I will abide by is that I will obey all the rules of staring,” referring to the courts’ doctrine giving weight to precedent. when making their decisions.

Barrett went on to say that she would do so for “any issue that arises, whether it is an abortion or something else. I will follow the law.”

Senator. Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, asked Barrett if she was looking at Roe v. Wade as a “super precedent”. Barrett countered that the way he used the term in “scholarship” and the way she used it in an article was the definition of stable states so well that people wouldn’t pay too hard to overrule them.

“And I answer a lot of questions about Roe, which I think suggests that Roe doesn’t fall into that category,” Barrett said.


Brett Kavanaugh, 2018: It was Feinstein who also asked Kavanaugh, “What do you think of your stance today on a woman’s right to choose?”

As a judge, it is an important precedent for the Supreme Court. By “he,” I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It has been emphasized many times. “Casey is precedent over precedent, which in itself is an important factor to remember,” Kavanaugh said.

Casey was a 1992 resolution that reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion services.

Kavanaugh went on to say he understood the importance of the issue. “I always try and hear about the real-world effects of this decision, as I try to do, for all of my court and Supreme Court decisions.”


Neil Gorse, 2017:

With President Donald Trump’s first nomination to the Supreme Court, it was Monday. Charles Grassley. R-Iowa, who asked Point Blank: “Can you tell me if Roe is correctly identified?

Gorsuch replied, “I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, which was sentenced in 1973, is a precedent for the US Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. Considerations of accreditation interest are important there, and all other factors that go into an analysis must be taken into account.” precedent. It is a precedent for the US Supreme Court. And it was reaffirmed in Casey 1992 and in several other cases. So any good judge who considers it a precedent for the US Supreme Court deserves the treatment of a precedent like any other.”


John Roberts, 2005

The late Mon. Arlene Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, asked about the now Chief Justice, who was a Federal Court of Appeals judge when he was nominated: “In your confirmation hearing for the Circuit Court, your testimony was read to that effect, and is widely quoted: ‘Roe is the law of the land’.” stable. Did you mean settled on you, or just settled on your status as circuit judge, or settled after that? “

Roberts replied: “It’s settled as a precedent for the court, entitled to respect under the Staring Principles. And those principles, applied in Casey’s case, make clear when cases should and when cases should not be visited. And it was settled as a precedent for the court, yes.”


Samuel Alito, 2006

Specter, who has been an unabashed supporter of Roe v. Wade noted during Alito’s hearings that the “dominant issue” was “widespread concern” about Alito’s position on women’s right to choose. This issue arose due to Alito’s 1985 statement that the Constitution does not provide for the right to abortion, Specter declared.

“Do you agree with that statement today, Judge Alito?” Specter asked.

Well, that was a true statement of what I believed in 1985 from my favorite point of view in 1985, and that was as a line attorney in the Reagan Administration’s Department of Justice.

“Today if the case were to be brought before me, if I were fortunate enough to confirm and the case were to be brought before me, the first question would be the question we were discussing, and that is the subject of staring,” said Alito. arguments put forward.

“So you will approach it with an open mind no matter what your statement in 1985?” Specter asked.

“Sure, Senator. That was a statement I made in an earlier period of time when I was in a different role, and as I said yesterday, when someone becomes a judge, you really have to put aside the things you did as a lawyer at earlier points in your legal profession and think about legal issues the way which the judge thinks of legal matters.”

Alito was the author of the leaked opinion draft announcing Verdict in Rue vs. Wade was “fatally wrong from the start.”


Clarence Thomas, 1991:

The late Mon. Howard Mitzenbaum, of Ohio, remembers presiding over a committee hearing and hearing servant women heard by “back alley abortion specialists.” He said he “would be terrified if we were to turn back the clock on legal abortion services.”

In his question of Thomas, the senator said, “I want to ask you again, appealing to your sense of pity, whether or not you think the Constitution protects a woman’s right to abortion?”

Thomas replied, “I think when I was a child we heard silent whispers about illegal abortions and people performing them in unsafe environments, but they were whispers. Of course, if a woman was subjected to the torment of an environment like that, on a personal level, I certainly feel very, very badly hurt by it.” That. I think either of us would be.”

Thomas, though, refused to give his opinion “on this issue, the question you put to me”.

“I think it would undermine my ability to sit impartially on such an important issue,” he said.

Leave a Comment