Supreme Suppression part2

David Garman

Republican Senator Susan Collins regarding concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v Wade:

I rose early Sunday morning, the morning after the full senate vote on the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS. My aim was to see video of Collins’s full speech. As a swing voter, Sen. Susan Collins explained why she would vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.

Took some quotes from the video to shed light on the views of this swing voter’s ability to neuter the hope that Roe v Wade would be reversed.

Speaking of (the disinfected tag line) a “women’s right to choose,” after a lengthy telephone conversation between Collins and Kavanaugh prior to the vote: “Protecting this (abortion) right is important to me. To my knowledge Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice in tradition but rooted in Article 3 of our constitution itself. He believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent. In other words precedent is not merely a goal or an aspiration, it is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances.”

“Noted that Roe v Wade was decided 45 years ago, and reaffirmed 19 years later, in Planned Parenthood v Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time, and that precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence.”

In other words the passage of time normalizes controversial decisions. Collins seemed to be focusing mainly on sexual issues during her comments, such as birth control and same sex marriage. Breathlessly she seemed to want to reassure herself and the Left that Kavanaugh would not damage these sacred cows overtly or covertly.

Aiming for the heart, Collins asked Kavanaugh, “Would it be sufficient to overturn a long established precedent if  5 current justices believed that it was wrongly decided? He emphatically said, ‘No.’”

She went on to point out that since 1980, Republicans have pledged to only nominate justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. The Republican presidential platform has included this rhetoric, pointing out that Republican nominees in the Planned Parenthood v Casey decision reaffirmed Roe. Adding the cherry atop she noted that pro-choice groups also vigorously opposed these nominations. In other words, silly goose, you needn’t worry about us, your ship to hell sails on.

In an earlier TV interview, Collins stated: “I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v Wade.”

Were my perceptions about Kavanaugh misguided? Or did he launch a smoke screen at “pro-choice” Republican Collins as she probed him in risk evaluation on the future of constitutional human pregnancy abortion rights in the USA? Did he make a deal with the devil to gain confirmation by the senators? Or was it sleight of hand to gain the seat in order to wage constitutional war on the so-called Deep State?

Why cite Article 3? I looked, didn’t see anything to do with precedent there, but a great deal to do with TREASON.

Out of anger my prediction was that Kavanaugh would not be a Supreme Court Justice. As a pro-lifer, he surely would not have been sworn in. Yet, his seat on the bench remains in jeopardy.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *