Word salads like that are good indicator she is trying to do an end around to justify why what is clearly written isn't so. It reads like her personal opinions on abortion and abortion policy, not a legal analysis. Many of her opinions read this way. There is no language in the constitution that confers a right to kill the unborn.
She was not basing her ruling on her personal opinion since her personal opinion was she was against abortion.
It also doesn't confer a right to remove cells or lump of cells. Is cataract surgery unconstitutional then?
There is a legal term called "Stare Decisis' that obligates the court to follow precedent when faced with similar cases. All of the judges cited specifically said during their hearings they would follow stare decisis and even when specifically asked regarding abortion. If they didn't think the original ruling was the correct one they shouldn't have said they would follow stare decisis.
this is worth reading, hadn't thought of this in quite this way: "If Kruger is better, pick her now." https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/01/like-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson.html January 28, 2022 "Like Judge [Ketanji Brown] Jackson, Justice [Leondra] Kruger has a dazzling résumé.... The main differences are that she’s younger and..." "... likely to be more moderate on SCOTUS than Judge Jackson, at least based on her record on the California Supreme Court, where she has sided with Republican appointees more often than her fellow Democratic appointees. Some observers also see Justice Kruger as 'intellectually stronger' or boasting more 'intellectual firepower' than Judge Jackson. [UPDATE (3:06 p.m.): For some important clarification of the preceding sentence, please see my Twitter thread.] The youth and moderation cut both ways. Yes, the Biden Administration favors young nominees. But on the other hand, Justice Kruger is young enough that she’ll be a viable SCOTUS pick for another five to ten years, so she could be 'saved' for a future vacancy (just as Justice Barrett was passed over for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s seat so she could be “saved” for Justice Ginsburg’s). The moderation makes Justice Kruger easier to confirm, which is useful in a closely divided Senate. But on the other hand, it has made some on the left somewhat cautious about or even opposed to her." Writes David Lat at "Handicapping President Biden's Supreme Court Shortlist/Here are my odds on the leading contenders—and some interesting historical analysis" (Original Jurisdiction). Lat gives Jackson a 40% chance of getting the nomination and Kruger a 30% chance. I prefer moderate Justices, so I hope it's Kruger. And I would add 2 things: the argument Professor Tribe made in 2010, when Obama got his first nomination and it seemed as though he was going to pick Sonia Sotomayor: It would be better to pick Elena Kagan, because she'd have more "of a purchase on Tony Kennedy's mind." Kennedy was the swing voter of the time, a time when the liberals only needed to swing one vote to gain a majority. These days, a liberal justice will need to swing 2 votes. Shouldn't Biden bet on Kruger? 2. Having committed to nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court, who can believe that the next nomination (if there is one) will also go to a black woman? Once you start doing representation, doesn't filling one slot eliminate putting the same "kind" of person in the next slot — or any slot any time soon? That might be a reason not to adopt this idea of choosing people by race and gender in the first place, but Biden made that choice back in the primaries when he needed to flaunt a pledge to win the black vote. Going forward, it's hard to picture nominating 2 black women in a row. It was easier to choose Kagan after Sotomayor than it will be to pick Kruger after Jackson. It's not something I expect Democrats to say out loud, but I'm sure Biden's people know that. If Kruger is better, pick her now. Posted by Ann Althouse at 10:38 AM that makes sense to me
Actually, the main difference is Jackson was confirmed by the current Senate, in mid-2021, w GOPers Graham. Mukowsky and Collins voting for her
In the past 223 years there have been 115 supreme court justices. And of those 115, 108 have been white men. But mojoman is still worried if an African American woman is nominated...
John McWhorter's latest It’s Time to End Race-Based Affirmative Action https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/28/opinion/affirmative-action.html
It is wrong for any president, republican or democrat, to exclude SCOTUS candidates based on race or gender. To do so is the definition of racism and sexism. Joe Biden is openly and proudly demonstrating racism and sexism.
Is so then other Presidents have done so before with other appointments yet it wasn't an issue when Reagan or GH Bush did it. Technically you're right but this is an argument that's should've been brought up before yet many of those now pushing this argument also praise Reagan endlessly.
No president should do it, and no president should ever have done it. Just because others in history have also demonstrated prejudice, that doesn’t mean it’s okay for people today to openly demonstrate prejudice.
SCOTUS judges should not lean one direction or another. Any judge that leans left or right should not be a SC Justice.
