Sotomayor Hearings, Abortion
July 15, 2009, 1:38 pm
Posted by Eduardo Peñalver
In her hearings today, Sotomayor testified that Obama did not ask her views on abortion before nominating her to the Court:
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor declined repeatedly at Senate confirmation hearings Wednesday to disclose her views on abortion rights, and said President Barack Obama never asked her about the issue before he chose her for the bench.
Given that Sotomayor’s views on abortion are not clear from her judicial record, doesn’t the failure of the President to seek out her views on the issue at least undermine the meme, much repeated by Catholic conservatives during the campaign, that Obama would be the most radically pro-abortion President since Roe was decided?
Eduardo, who is the most radically pro-abortion President since Roe was decided? Clearly if Sonia Sotomayor believed that the Right to Life that is endowed to EVERYONE of us by our Creator is an UNALIENABLE Right to begin with, she would have stated that fact as a reality, not as something that is not always “concrete” or is relative to whose Life you are referring to.
This assumes that Obama had no way of finding out without asking directly, and Sotomayor had no way of communicating her position without saying, “Here are my views on Roe v Wade.” You would know this better than I would, but wouldn’t it be extremely unethical for Obama to say to Sotomayor, “Now let’s discuss how you might rule on abortion if I appoint you to the court”? And wouldn’t Sotomayor be obligated to say, “I can’t answer that question”? Wouldn’t it be flat out wrong for a president to discuss actual issues with a nominee or potential nominee?
Do you think she could be the 5th vote to overturn Roe? I have my hopes.
Nancy,
The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence (or the Catechism of the Catholic Church).
I’m glad the Democrats won so that we can focus on important things like refuting the losing side’s memes from last year’s election.
I don’t imagine that Obama asked her her views on abortion. More likely he just imagined that if she walked like a duck, talked like a duck, etc.
David, as you already know, the Constitution is the “Government instituted among men”, chosen by our Founding Fathers to secure the fundamental Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The preamble of the Constitution states:
We, the People of The United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE, promote the GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND do ordain and establish this Constitution for The United States of America.
This Government that was formed by our Founding Fathers was formed with the intention of protecting both the living and the unborn, the future prosperity of this Great Nation.
that should read secure THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR PROSPERITY-, No doubt the Founding Fathers intended these Rights to protect the as yet, unborn, which would include all of us who are living here at this moment in Time.
This Government that was formed by our Founding Fathers was formed with the intention of protecting both the living and the unborn, the future prosperity of this Great Nation.
Can you quote me anything at all from the writings of the Founding Fathers that actually mentions the unborn? And if they all believed in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for everyone, please explain why most of them owned slaves.
Except for a small minority of people who believe the Fourteenth Amendment (which was not written by the Founding Fathers) can be interpreted to include the unborn as persons, the vast majority of people opposed to Roe v Wade oppose it because they believe the Constitution has nothing to say on the issue of abortion. That is why the pro-life movement pins its hopes on overturning Roe v Wade, which will turn the matter back to the states.
David, the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion because the Constitution exists to protect Human Life, not destroy it.
David, the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion because the Constitution exists to protect Human Life, not destroy it.
Nancy,
The prevailing opinion, even among most pro-life conservatives, is that the Constitutions says nothing either for or against abortion. That is why it is a matter they want left up to the states.
The Constitution does not prohibit everything that is evil and promote everything that is good. It permitted slavery, remember.
“Posterity,” I believe, not “prosperity.” But it still isn’t about abortion.
oops, thank you Lisa, it should read, posterity, as in all future generations, which would obviously include the unborn. And you are correct when you say that the phrase, “and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”, is not about destroying Life, it is about protecting Life, from the beginning.
F.Y.I. – Regarding the Constitution of The United States of America which was based on the unalienable, fundamental, ordered, Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness endowed to all Mankind by our Creator, God:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25601
Ms. Danielson,
You, and Mr. Farah in “Human Events,” appear to be adding 1 and 1 and getting 4.
The Declaration of Independence is a founding philosophical document, but the Constitution stands on its own two feet. Remember, there was a prior attempt to build a national government, the Articles of Confederation, which failed.
A rational constitutional argument against Roe v. Wade’s reasoning would be something like this:
Griswold v. Connecticut was wrongly decided, as there is no federal “right to privacy” contained in the Constitution’s “penumbras”, and thus no federal question. Thus the states, according to the 10th amendment, are free to establish their own laws (and, indeed, constitutional standards).
Now Griswold is 44-year-old precedent, “settled law.” For the Supreme Court to overturn it would constitute legislating from the bench.
With all due Respect, R.P., The Constitution of The United States existed long before Griswold, which was not consistent with The Constitution of The United States to begin with.
P.S., Due Process is binding on State as well as Federal Law.