Loading...

Did Trump say he would only nominate Justices who committed to overruling Roe v. Wade? - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title Did Trump say he would only nominate Justices who committed to overruling Roe v. Wade?, we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : Did Trump say he would only nominate Justices who committed to overruling Roe v. Wade?
link : Did Trump say he would only nominate Justices who committed to overruling Roe v. Wade?

Did Trump say he would only nominate Justices who committed to overruling Roe v. Wade?

I heard the NYT reporter Adam Liptak make that assertion (on yesterday's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast), and I wondered if that was strictly accurate. 

Writing every day, I've followed Trump very closely, and I believe if he said anything like that, I would have blogged about it, and the key words to search my archive are so clear — Trump... Supreme Court... abortion — that I'm going to believe the answer is "no" if I am unable to find it. 

***

I needed to read through about 20 old posts to find what is relevant to my question — only 3 posts, which I'll present in chronological order, with boldface added:

June 27, 2016: 

I asked, "Why hasn't Trump said anything about the Supreme Court's new abortion case?" Answering my own question: "Gender politics isn't his thing. He only talks about abortion when pushed or when attacked."

October 20, 2016: 

Chris Wallace, moderating a debate, asked where the Supreme Court should take the country and what's the right approach to constitutional interpretation. Trump blathered a bit, seized on the Second Amendment, and threw in "The justices that I am going to appoint will be pro-life." You can be pro-life and still decide reaffirm the long-standing precedent, so his answer is an evasion. Wallace was smart to follow up:

Wallace: Mr. Trump, you're pro-life... Do you want the court, including the justices that you will name, to overturn Roe v. Wade, which includes, in fact, states a woman's right to abortion.

Trump: Well, if that would happen, because I am pro-life and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that would go back to the individual states.

Wallace: I'm asking you specifically would you-

Trump: If they overturned it, it would go back to the states.

Wallace: But what I'm asking you, do you want to see the court overturn it? You just said you want to see the court protect the second amendment, do you want to see the court overturn-

Trump: If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that is really what will happen. That will happen automatically in my opinion.

I protested:

Automatically?! I was shouting at the TV at this point: He does not understand how the law works! The overturning of Roe v. Wade would never "happen automatically." Even if you put people you believed were pro-life onto the Court, they would have to read the briefs, hear the argument, contemplate stare decisis, and experience the awesome responsibility from within the new position of unassailable lifetime tenure. Justices O'Connor and Kennedy (appointed by Reagan) and Justice Souter (appointment by Bush I) were already there, and they preserved Roe v. Wade when they got confronted with overturning it in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. There is nothing automatic here, and, in fact, I place my bet on Roe v. Wade never being overturned, no matter how many supposedly pro-life justices get on the Court.

November 14, 2016: 

It's after the election now, and Lesley Stahl, on "60 Minutes," asked Trump "Will you appoint-- are you looking to appoint a justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?" Trump evaded the question by answering "The judges will be pro-life" and "if [Roe] ever were overturned, it would go back to the states." Stahl did not pick up on the evasion. The discussion shifted to what would happen if Roe were overturned, and he blew it off with "Well, we’ll see what happens. It’s got a long way to go, just so you understand. That has a long, long way to go." 

I read between the lines: "He doesn't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and even as he wants pro-lifers to know he cares, he'd like pro-choicers not to worry too much."

***

I'm open to correction, but it is my belief, based on paying close attention, that Trump never said he would only nominate Justices who are committed to overruling Roe v. Wade. I can see how people got that message, however, and I can see how you might want to hold him responsible for saying things that caused them to think that's what they heard. Feel free to get angry at Trump. I always thought he didn't have much feeling for how law works. He's more about closing deals — Let the lawyers tend to the law stuff! But I think he wanted solid conservative scholars on the Court, and that mattered far more than actually getting Roe v. Wade overruled. In fact, that's a result I don't even believe he wanted.

Loading...

I heard the NYT reporter Adam Liptak make that assertion (on yesterday's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast), and I wondered if that was strictly accurate. 

Writing every day, I've followed Trump very closely, and I believe if he said anything like that, I would have blogged about it, and the key words to search my archive are so clear — Trump... Supreme Court... abortion — that I'm going to believe the answer is "no" if I am unable to find it. 

***

I needed to read through about 20 old posts to find what is relevant to my question — only 3 posts, which I'll present in chronological order, with boldface added:

June 27, 2016: 

I asked, "Why hasn't Trump said anything about the Supreme Court's new abortion case?" Answering my own question: "Gender politics isn't his thing. He only talks about abortion when pushed or when attacked."

October 20, 2016: 

Chris Wallace, moderating a debate, asked where the Supreme Court should take the country and what's the right approach to constitutional interpretation. Trump blathered a bit, seized on the Second Amendment, and threw in "The justices that I am going to appoint will be pro-life." You can be pro-life and still decide reaffirm the long-standing precedent, so his answer is an evasion. Wallace was smart to follow up:

Wallace: Mr. Trump, you're pro-life... Do you want the court, including the justices that you will name, to overturn Roe v. Wade, which includes, in fact, states a woman's right to abortion.

Trump: Well, if that would happen, because I am pro-life and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that would go back to the individual states.

Wallace: I'm asking you specifically would you-

Trump: If they overturned it, it would go back to the states.

Wallace: But what I'm asking you, do you want to see the court overturn it? You just said you want to see the court protect the second amendment, do you want to see the court overturn-

Trump: If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that is really what will happen. That will happen automatically in my opinion.

I protested:

Automatically?! I was shouting at the TV at this point: He does not understand how the law works! The overturning of Roe v. Wade would never "happen automatically." Even if you put people you believed were pro-life onto the Court, they would have to read the briefs, hear the argument, contemplate stare decisis, and experience the awesome responsibility from within the new position of unassailable lifetime tenure. Justices O'Connor and Kennedy (appointed by Reagan) and Justice Souter (appointment by Bush I) were already there, and they preserved Roe v. Wade when they got confronted with overturning it in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. There is nothing automatic here, and, in fact, I place my bet on Roe v. Wade never being overturned, no matter how many supposedly pro-life justices get on the Court.

November 14, 2016: 

It's after the election now, and Lesley Stahl, on "60 Minutes," asked Trump "Will you appoint-- are you looking to appoint a justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?" Trump evaded the question by answering "The judges will be pro-life" and "if [Roe] ever were overturned, it would go back to the states." Stahl did not pick up on the evasion. The discussion shifted to what would happen if Roe were overturned, and he blew it off with "Well, we’ll see what happens. It’s got a long way to go, just so you understand. That has a long, long way to go." 

I read between the lines: "He doesn't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and even as he wants pro-lifers to know he cares, he'd like pro-choicers not to worry too much."

***

I'm open to correction, but it is my belief, based on paying close attention, that Trump never said he would only nominate Justices who are committed to overruling Roe v. Wade. I can see how people got that message, however, and I can see how you might want to hold him responsible for saying things that caused them to think that's what they heard. Feel free to get angry at Trump. I always thought he didn't have much feeling for how law works. He's more about closing deals — Let the lawyers tend to the law stuff! But I think he wanted solid conservative scholars on the Court, and that mattered far more than actually getting Roe v. Wade overruled. In fact, that's a result I don't even believe he wanted.

Thus articles Did Trump say he would only nominate Justices who committed to overruling Roe v. Wade?

that is all articles Did Trump say he would only nominate Justices who committed to overruling Roe v. Wade? This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article Did Trump say he would only nominate Justices who committed to overruling Roe v. Wade? with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2021/12/did-trump-say-he-would-only-nominate.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: