Judge Alito: Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in
1973, so it has been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of
occasions, and I discussed those yesterday, and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision,
sometimes on the merits, sometimes in Casey based on stare decisis, and I think that when a
decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed that strengthens its value as stare decisis for at least
two reasons.
Judge Thomas: Senator, I think that the Supreme Court has made clear that the issue of marital
privacy is protected, that the State cannot infringe on that without a compelling interest, and the
Supreme Court, of course, in the case of Roe v. Wade has found an interest in the woman's right
to"as a fundamental interest a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.
Judge Gorsuch: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.
Judge Kavanaugh: Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.
Judge Coney Barrett: I will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors. And I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I'll follow the law.
The Supreme Court stopped being a respected institution bringing solemnity, dignity, and legitimacy to the government when over half the sitting justices were revealed to be just another pack of lying, conniving, grifting political players.
She has nowhere near the chops for POTUS. Probably not the Senate, either, especially if she's replacing a long time national leader (even if it's past time for him to go).
She needs to first show leadership qualities IN THE HOUSE before thinking she's ready to move up a level.
What has she done? Seriously, what accomplishments and qualities has she shown beyond social media sound bites and edgy yet in the end useless "progressive" angst?