On Sunday, as controversy over a leaked Supreme Court draft decision that would overturn abortion rights continued to roil the nation, MSNBC host Ayman Mohyeldin proposed investigating whether five justices lied during their confirmation hearings.
The five justices, all of whom voted to overturn the original decision, said something quite different during the hearings. The legal doctrine of stare decisis states that judges should rule in accordance with precedent, though it does allow for precedent to be overturned in certain cases.
None of the clips show any of the justices saying that they would uphold the decision.
Some of the justices had been less than honest according to Sen. Susan Collins. She said in a statement that the draft decision was completely inconsistent with what she voted to confirm.
So, were they telling the truth? Here is a selection of what Republican-appointed justices said during their confirmation hearings.
Amy ConeyBarrett will be in 2020.
I have no agenda. I don't have an agenda to try to overrule him. I want to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, and being undermined by later facts in law. I promise to do that for any issue that comes up. I will follow the law.
I explained that the term "super precedent" is used in academic work to refer to cases that are so well settled that no political actors or people want to overrule them. That does not mean that Roe should be overruled.
There was a new Supreme Court justice, Brett Kavanaugh.
Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It has been repeated many times. In 1992 it was decided by the court whether to affirm it or overturn it. That makes precedent. It has been used. In cases such as Glucksberg and other cases, it has been said that the authority was given to Casey. As you think about stare decisis in this context, that precedent on precedent is quite important.
You have an open mind. You get the arguments and briefs. Some arguments are better than others. Precedent is important. It's the foundation of our system. You listen to all arguments.
Neil Gorsuch was a judge.
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that abortion is a right. It has been maintained. The reliance interest considerations are important, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the Supreme Court. It was done in several other places. A good judge will consider it to be a precedent of the Supreme Court.
Samuel Alito.
If the court made a decision based on its perception of public opinion, it would undermine the legitimacy of the court.
I agree that in every case in which there is a prior precedent, the first issue is the issue of stare decisis, and the presumption is that the court will follow its prior precedents. There needs to be a special reason to overrule a prior precedent.
I agree with the underlying thought that when a precedent is strengthened, it strengthens the precedent.
My Third Circuit record shows that I have an obligation to follow the law in this area and all other areas. I wouldn't have voted as I did in my Third Circuit cases if I had an agenda to uphold any abortion regulation that came along.
John Roberts was born in 2005.
Chief Justice Roberts did not join Alito in his draft opinion, but he did signal his willingness to uphold Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban.
The particular case of Roe was decided in the summer of 1992 in which they went through the various factors in stare decisis and upheld the central holding. As of 1992, you had a reaffirmation of the central holding. That decision, that application of the principles of stare decisis, is a precedent that would be entitled to respect under those principles.
When you overrule a precedent, it is a big deal in the legal system. Precedent helps promote stability and evenhandedness. The court has made it clear that it is not enough. You have to think that the prior decision was wrong. That doesn't answer the question. The question is posed. Settlement expectations, legitimacy of the court, whether a particular precedent is workable or not, are some of the other factors that you look at.
Clarence Thomas was born in 1991.
I think I have said that there is a privacy interest in the Constitution, in the liberty component of the due process clause.
The Supreme Court has an interest in the woman's right to abortion as a fundamental interest. I don't think I can maintain my impartiality as a member of the judiciary at this time.
Do you have an opinion on the outcome of Roe v. Wade, and my answer is that I don't?
The legislation is stupid.
There is a problem with running against a president.
There is a baby formula shortage.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
