Sotomayor calls abortion rights 'settled law'

[Adir Pykhtin]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jWzNVWyAB0qB_QWp1e5ajEfi59rgD99EAK600

---

There had been doubts about her views on abortion. This should clear them.

[Warpy]

1. Expect the fetus fetishists to blow a gasket for real now

since before this they only suspected she wasn't completely on the side of enforcing reproductive slavery.

Poor Judge Sotomayor. I hope she's got a hide like a rhino. She's going to need it.

[Zhade]

11. Fetushists?

NT!

[Xipe Totec]

20. Fettuccines n/t

[GoddessOfGuinness]

21. Say fetushists five times fast

and you'll win a prize! :rofl:

[JerseygirlCT]

17. From the little I've been able to watch, she's right on this

all the way. She seems tough and incredibly smart, and she's not letting anyone lead her around. And her qualifications are superb.

They won't be able to stop this.

[Mz Pip]

2. That's what Robert's said, too

He used the term "settled law".

We shall see.

[musette_sf]

3. although i question Sotomayor's record

my gut tells me she will have more empathy for women, than Roberts.

Roberts and his wife have two very questionable adoptions... kids born in Ireland, who were then adopted in Latin America...

see DU from 2005:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4294790&mesg_id=4294790

smacks of exploitation of people and law.

[JerseygirlCT]

18. Well, that points out what a bunch of malarky it is when

people like Roberts address precedence, doesn't it?

[iris27]

32. If I'm remembering right, though they may have used the same phrase, Roberts would not confirm that

there is a constitutional right to privacy, as Sotomayor did. In the necessary evasions and subtleties of confirmation-hearing-speak, that meant he was anti-choice and she is pro.

Edited to add: yup, I was remembering right...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4376059

"...new documents released by the National Archives from Roberts's tenure as a senior adviser to the attorney general during the Reagan administration make clear that he was deeply skeptical of the court's recognition of a citizen's fundamental "right to privacy" -- the legal concept that underpinned its historic 1973 decision upholding a right to abortion. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201913_pf.html


"Judge John G. Roberts Jr., President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, has written quite a bit in opposition to a constitutional right to privacy that has served as the basis for Supreme Court decisions protecting abortion and gay rights." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/politics/politicsspecial1/08roberts.html?ex=1281153600&en=37410590399743bc&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[inna]

4. i caught that this morning on CNN and was relieved. K&R for good news.

(even though there was little doubt that she was pro-choice...)

[kestrel91316]

5. I was thrilled to head her very firm statement on privacy rights,

and that Griswold and Roe are both settled law in her mind. Now let's replace some of the dinosaurs on the court with a couple more like her.

[SkyDaddy7]

6. YES! I love her even more!

:bounce: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :applause: :applause: :patriot:

[liberal N proud]

7. YEAH!

[Fearless]

8. Good. Now let's move on.

[joeybee12]

9. I'm glad she sees there is a constitutional right to privacy...it's common sense...

...and applies not only to abortion but to things like sodomy laws. She's gone way up in my opinion...before I figured she'd be ok, but had nor eal guidance as to how she viewed things.

[No Elephants]

14. She didn't say what she saw or didn't see.

[No Elephants]

10. Why should this clear doubts? Justice Roberts said the exact same thing (only he

smiled while he said it). A minute and a half after he got onto the SCOTUS bench, he started voting to reverse settle law as to choice.

My guess is that Sotomayor will be pro-choice, but the answer she gave today was the ONLY one she could give without lying. Roe v. Wade--abortions in the first trimester--is settled law and will remain so--unless and until it's overturned. Same is true of ANY SCOTUS case. Each and every one of them is settled law, unless and until the SCOTUS overrules it.

[iris27]

33. See my reply (#32) to Mz Pip. n/t

[Qutzupalotl]

12. So it would take a cadre of activist judges to overturn it. n/t

[No Elephants]

13. Not really. Overturning any SCOTUS case takes 5 Justices.

[BrklynLiberal]

15. YAY!!!!!!!

[JerseygirlCT]

16. That's great - and absolutely the right way to answer that question, IMO

She's been talking about precedent and the rule of law. That's also often been a song sung by the right when dealing with these nominations. This catches them in their own verbiage. Precedence has indeed been established. There is no legal or constitutional argument to undermine that right to privacy wrt abortion. It's those who would work to stack the court and then overturn established law and rights with a slim majority vote that are being unfaithful to the law and the Constitution.

[Thothmes]

23. Some times overturning "established law" is not a bad thing

Think Brown V the Board of Education overturning Plessey V Ferguson.

[JerseygirlCT]

25. That did occur to me after I posted.

But it seems that we might find a few in the senate and even on the USSC who might have clung to precedence as an excuse not to join in on Brown...

I just think her framing makes it harder for the right to come up with excuses about her jurisprudence.

[No Elephants]

28. Pub Senators had already mentioned several times that a federal judge is bound by

settled law, but a SCOTUS Justice is not, meaning she can vote to overturn SCOTUS cases, when she gets to be a SCOTUS justice.

And, to help Sotomayor, Democratic Senators have mentioned that Roberts said that Roe v. Wade is settled law, yet started overturning "settled" choice law as soon as he got on the bench of the SCOTUS.

This whole hearing is a farce, using tax money to allow both sides to bloviate on TV at our expense to pay to the respective prejudices of their respective bases. Everyone knew how they would vote when Obama named her.

She's going to get confirmed, no matter what. Take a vote already and move on to a debate that might actually affect someone's vote.

[iris27]

34. Plessy v. Ferguson has become a RW dogwhistle re: abortion...a way for politicians

to give a shout-out to their anti-choice base without actually having to bring up abortion. Bush did it in one of the 2004 debates.

Not that anyone here thinks Brown was wrongly decided, mind you! Just saying.

Sotomayor's assurance that she believes in a constitutional right to privacy eases my mind much more than any of this 'settled law' blathering. The Supreme Court is only bound by precedent when it chooses to be.

[Omaha Steve]

19. K&R!

From a former escort at Dr. Orr's clinic in Omaha. Way to go Judge Sotomayor.

OS

[shimmergal]

22. Good for her!

I didn't think she'd say otherwise, but will some dippy Catholic bishops try to pressure her like they've done with Dem politicians?

[cascadiance]

24. If a repuke gives her crap about Roe v. Wade not being "settled law", she should fire back...

Well, if you feel the bar is that I should regard this law as unconstitutional that has precedent from judicial interpretation and ultimate decision in Roe v. Wade, then how would you have me not also overturn the concept of "corporate personhood", which isn't even "settled law" from decisions and statements from the justices on the court at the time, but of a court clerk who wrote a head note. Should I overturn Roe v. Wade and ignore overturning another case of "settled law" which wasn't based on either laws or justices decisions? It seems like you are doing what Senator Feingold is suggesting and not advocating me being consistent but just to rule the way you want to selectively. That's not the way a justice's decision process on the high court should work.

[No Elephants]

29. They can't because Roberts said the exact same thing. And they would make themselves appear

ignorant because the only thing "settled law" means is that the SCOTUS decided Roe (States may not outlaw abortion during the FIRST trimester.) and has not yet overruled it. The Roberts Courst has, however, overruled oher "choice" cases and doctrines.

Sotomayor was a corporate lawyer and has been a pro-corporate judge. We'll soon see if she remains that way when she is on the SCOTUS and is no longer bound by precedent.

[USA_1]

26. Roe {1973} & Casey {1992}

The majority in both cases were Republican. Because of conservative principle, precedent CANNOT be overturned. On that basis it is settled law.

Case closed.

[USA_1]

27. I Should Add ...

... that I am a pro lifer and have to concede that this is legally unalterable.

[No Elephants]

31. At any given time, five Justices is all it takes to overturn any prior case or group

of cases. The Roberts Court has been dialing back on choice, overturning even recent precedents. Nothing prevents the SCOTUS from holding that even Roe, which holds only that states may not outlaw abortion in the first trimester, was wrongly decided. Several Justices said exactly that in the Casey case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey) (Don't know why you are citing Casey to show that no one can dial back on choice.)

[No Elephants]

30. Yet, the Roberts Court has overturned choice precedents and doctines..

[USA_1]

36. In Principle ...

... conservatives do not believe in overturning precedent. But you make a valid point: since when are ''conservatives'' bound by principle except as a propaganda ploy.

As for Casey it affirmed Roe.

[iris27]

35. Precedent CAN and often IS overturned by the Supreme Court.

Lower courts must respect the precedence of a higher court. The Supreme Court is free to overrule past precedent when it chooses. Conservative (small 'c') principle and truly "strict constructionist" judge may feel bound by past decisions. But in actual practice, right-wing judges are as much or more 'activist' in practice than the liberals they attack...they just have different goals in mind.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. That should settle it on the 2nd Amendment too, surely she sees that as settled law also.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

39. Jesus H. Christ, EVERYTHING has to be about guns for you people? -nt

[Kirk McPike]

38. Good to hear! n/t