‘Ginsburg Precedent’ Argument Proved That Senate GOP Truly Brain-Dead Re: Importance Of Supreme Court Nominees
John Lofton, Editor
It is, without a doubt, one of the stupidest, most ridiculous arguments ever offered by anybody about anything. I am alluding here to the argument by some Republicans that because the GOP Senate voted overwhelmingly to confirm far-Left Clinton Supreme Court nominees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, Senate Democrats should have done the same thing re: President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito.
A recent example of what I’m talking about occurred on the “Fox News Sunday” TV show. Two of the guests were California Democrat Diane Feinstein and South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. Unlike the supposedly conservative, pro-life Graham, Feinstein stood firm and defended her pro-death, pro-abortion view.
When asked if there was any chance she might vote for Alito, Feinstein called the “right” to an abortion “a seminal issue.” That being the case, she said that if it’s true that Alito still believes “the Constitution does not protect a woman’s rights in this area” – as he said in 1985 – ‘this will make him a very difficult nominee for many of us.” She added that if she believed Alito “was going to go in there and overthrow Roe, the question is most likely yes,” that she would be for filibustering his nomination.
Feinstein also said that anyone who thought Roe v. Wade was improperly decided is outside the “mainstream” because ” Roe could have been overturned 38 times. Precedent has been established. Women all over America have come to depend on it. An overwhelming majority of people support it. Therefore, because of the lapse of time, more than 30 years, [there are] precedential values attached to it.”
Comment: 38 wrongs do not make a right. Abortion is murder regardless of how many times it is said to be right — period, end of argument.
SEN. FEINSTEIN defended and made an issue of her pro-death, pro-abortion position.Feinstein also talked about what she considers to be the bad old pre-Roe days before more than 40 million innocent unborn babies were slaughtered by abortion: “I’m old enough to know what it was like back when abortion was illegal. I know what it’s like to see young women commit suicide. I know what it’s like to see them go to Tijuana. And I don’t want to go back to those days.”
To which Graham replied, pathetically: “You know, Dianne’s a good friend. That’s a very dangerous thing to say. The question we should look — if a person adheres to a pro-choice or a pro-life philosophy — that shouldn’t be disqualifying because the country is split.”
Comment: If a judicial nominee believes abortion, which is murder, is OK, that most definitely disqualifies the nominee.
Graham continued: “The question for a judge is will you follow the law, will you base your decision based on the briefs, the argument and the facts, and not a personal agenda.
“This idea that you’ve got to show an allegiance to Roe v. Wade to get on the court, and if you won’t show an allegiance to it — if you have to come to the committee and say under no circumstances will I entertain an argument to look at Roe v. Wade anew, I think that’s very unfair.
“That did not happen on Clinton’s watch. If that becomes the new standard, we’re taking the whole judiciary and boiling it down to one issue, and we’re going to disqualify great men and women who may disagree with an individual senator on that one issue. That would be bad for the judiciary. It would be bad for the country.
Comment: No, what is “unfair” (to the innocent, unborn) and morally idiotic is to believe, as Graham does, that the abortion issue is not really that important.
SEN. GRAHAM, supposedly pro-life, saw abortion issue as no big deal.Then came the invocation of the ridiculous ‘Ginsburg Precedent.’ Graham says: “But let’s talk about the abortion question for a moment. When President Clinton chose twice — he had two picks on his watch — he chose Ginsburg and Breyer, people left of center. Justice Ginsburg openly embraced the idea that there was a constitutional right to an abortion.
“I don’t agree with that, but Republicans who were pro-life and, I guess, a few Democrats who were pro-life, did not hold that position against her. They believed that she would decide the cases based on the facts and the law.
“So we’re not going to sit back and watch a double standard to be imposed here. People who have come from Democratic nominees have openly embraced the idea that they believe there’s a constitutional right to abortion. They were not disqualified.
“If Judge Alito advocated that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, that is no — that’s not a disqualifying event. An extraordinary circumstance could never be having a different philosophy. You expect Republicans to pick people differently than Democrats….
“And the fact that [Alito] may disagree with somebody on a particular issue like abortion — well, that happens all the time. That happens when Clinton picked Ginsburg and Breyer. She was the ACLU executive general counsel. I disagree with her about everything she basically advocated. But I can understand why she was given 96 votes.”
Comment: Any Senator who voted for the pro-abortion Ginsburg, or has voted for any pro-abortion judge, is not pro-life. No way.