Trump accused the judges of going back on their word on Row – but did they? | U.S. Supreme Court

CChief Justice John Roberts Condemned The draft Supreme Court opinion leaked that turns Roe W. Wade into a “betrayal”. But for that The majority of Americans Proponents of the abortion access right were truly betrayed by the five judges who initially voted to overturn the landmark case.

This is especially true of the three conservative Supreme Court judges nominated by Donald Trump: Neil Korsch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Connie Barrett. During their Senate confirmation hearings, each of those three judges was asked about Roe and the planned parenthood V Case, which upheld the right to access abortion in 1992, and can now be revoked.

The comments made by the three judges during those hearings are now under renewed scrutiny as they face accusations of misleading politicians and the public.

Republican Senator Susan Collins, who backed Korsch and Kavanagh, repeatedly assured the public that he would not vote to overthrow Rowe, expressing concern about the draft opinion and what they later changed what the judges had told him.

“If this leaked draft opinion is final and this report is accurate, it would be in stark contrast to what Judge Korsch and Judge Kavanagh said during their hearings and at our meetings in my office,” Collins said. Is not final.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkovsky, who supports abortion rights and voted in favor of Korsch and Barrett’s recommendations, said the draft opinion “now shakes my confidence in court.”

Murkovsky Told reporters Tuesday: “If the revealed draft actually goes to the conclusion that it is the case, it is not the direction I believe the court will take based on the alleged statements about Roy being settled and being a pioneer.”

During his 2017 confirmation hearings, Korsch said: “Casey is a law that is settled in the sense of a decision U.S. Supreme Court. “When Kavanagh appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2018, he similarly described Rowe as” many times the prime example of the Supreme Court, “and he defined Casey as a” pioneer “because it supported Rowe.

But parts of the law say that Korsch and Cavanaugh’s comments about Roe and Casey do not explicitly state how they can vote in a case such as the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization ‘, and some are expected to read only what they want to hear in their statements.

“When people are referred to the Supreme Court and they testify in Senate confirmation hearings, they are very careful about their language,” said Catherine Franke, a professor at Columbia Law School. Something like “settled law” does not really have a definite legal meaning, which means that it is the decision of the Supreme Court, and I agree that it exists, but it has no significance beyond that.

During his Senate confirmation hearings, Barrett was more careful in his language about Rowe than Korsch and Kavanagh. Rowe refused to be identified as a “super precedent”, meaning the widely accepted case was unlikely to be overturned by the court. Instead, he promised that if confirmed, he would abide by the legal principle of “selective resolution” to adjudicate cases on the basis of precedent.

However, Barrett’s writings before joining the Supreme Court made clear his thoughts on Rowe. In One is the 1998 paperBarrett and his co-author defined abortion as “always immoral” in the eyes of the Catholic Church. She too Signed In a 2006 ad, Rowe was described as “barbaric.”

“Both Senators Collins and Murkowski have asked all of these nominees sharp questions, trying to make it clear that they will not violate the Row V hunt,” Frank said. “While other parts of the world clearly knew that Murkowski and Collins were ideologically and legally opposed to abortion, they may have heard what they wanted to hear about feeling better about voting to confirm these candidates.”

For that reason, many progressives expressed little sympathy for Collins and Murkowski, who responded with confusion to the draft comment.

“Murkowski voted for Amy Connie Barrett when Trump announced that he would appoint judges specifically to overthrow Rowe,” Alexandria Okasio-Cortez, a progressive congresswoman, said Tuesday. “When she and Collins were capable of stopping the slide, they betrayed the nation’s reproductive rights. They can no longer play victim.

Instead of regretting it, progressives are demanding that Collins and Murkowski take action to defend their abortion rights.

Both Collins and Murkowski have said they support Rowe’s legislation, but the plan does not have the 60 votes needed to overtake Senate Philippe. Progressives are now calling on Collins and Murkowski to support a Philippere Corvette to bring Rowe’s defense into law.

“To preserve their legacy, Collins and Murkowski must work with Democratic senators to do everything necessary to protect Rowe in federal law,” said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “Now no meaningful action can take place without the Philipster Curve.”

But Collins and Murkowski have so far given no indication that they support such a mechanism. If they do not, the court is prepared to overturn the nearly 50-year-old precedent and destroy the national right to abortion, even if the majority of the country’s population opposes that decision. A CNN poll Released earlier this year, 69% of Americans oppose the overthrow of Rowe, while 30% support the reversal.

If the court follows the draft decision, it will ensure that 26 states ban abortion. Those restrictions will force people to travel long distances from home to go to states where abortion is legal, to obtain illegal drugs, or to try to terminate pregnancies in dangerous ways. Many pregnant women are forced into unwanted pregnancies.

And Collins and Murkowski can offer Americans nothing but regret.

Jessica Glenza of The Guardian contributed to the report