When Senator Collins spoke with Supreme Court nominees Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, they agreed that Rose v. Wade was settled law. As justices, they have determined that not to be the case.
That reversal begs the question: What is settled law? Are Brown v. Board of Education, the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote, equal rights laws, or whatever other targets they choose, not settled law?
Do the justices have particular agendas, as Alito did with Roe, that will drive them to overturn other significant laws? Their personal bias should not determine the definition and application of specific laws. Any skilled jurist can craft the language of an opinion to suit their purpose.
Did Kavanaugh and Gorsuch create a precedent in which justices can say one thing to appease potential Senate voters (sounding very political) and then vote their “conscience” or accept some other justice’s rationale as more legally definitive?
Has the Supreme Court opened the door for more Jan. 6th-type insurrections? Personal agendas should not be the driver for setting or settling our laws. By oath, they have the responsibility to avoid chaos through sound judicial reasoning, not to directly or indirectly encourage it.
David Hyde
Pownal
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.