For Pro-Choice

[lehighguy]

This is only for pro-choicers (or mixed if you like).

If a nominee openly opposed Roe v Wade, but offered a well crafted constitutional arguement and reasoning, could you confirm him. Let us assume that overturning it would either send it to congress or back to the states (not outlaw it).

Edit: If constitutional, please outline.

[[censored]]

I could and would support the nominee if he was a sound conservative. Similar to how I could support Giulani

[PoBoy321]

It would really depend on his reasoning for overturning Roe v. Wade, but I think that I would vote against on constitutional grounds. Roe v. Wade, while an important case on abortion rights, also addressed a lot of important issues regarding privacy and doctor/patient privilege that I think are too important to be tampered with.

Wouldn't those issues be addressed in other legislation or rulings?

[PoBoy321]

well those issues would be, and have been addressed in other rulings, but, and this is why I said that his reasoning would be very important, it could put those issues on shaky legal footing depending on the opinion that he set forward.

[Colonel Kataffy]

Regardless of ones stance on abortion, the constitutional basis for the Roe decision should be considered weak at best.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of ones stance on abortion, the constitutional basis for the Roe decision should be considered weak at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

If a nominee openly opposed Roe v Wade

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely irrelevant, as Roe has not been the controlling decision for years. Casey is what I'd be interested in now.

[lehighguy]

What if the right to privacy was acknowledged, but the judge found there was insufficient judicial evidence to show that right was greater then the rights of the child.

[lastchance]

You have to make up the argument. Depends on how well that argument is written.

It is very hard to deny highly qualifed judges for the Supreme Court nominee.