Color Susan Collins(Senator – Maine ) as confused. She thinks judicial fiat from five or more Justices in Black Robes something akin to Moses’s proclamation from the Mount, from American Spectator :
Declares Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican moderate from Maine, whose vote could prove essential to confirmation of whatever nominee the White House puts forward: “A candidate for this important post who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me. That would indicate an activist agenda that I don’t want to see a judge have. And that would indicate to me a failure to respect precedent.”
In any case, how useful to note Sen. Collins’ confusion between the abiding principles of law and the politics of the moment. It is a very modern kind of confusion, making the stakes in Supreme Court confirmation hard to discern. It is enough to know the present stakes are altitudinous: far, far less about Roe vs. Wade than about prospects for the survival of American freedoms.
Mark Levin, from Conservative Review :
“Look at the cases of Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu v. the United States. They were abominations,” Levin argued. “The Supreme Court has done some horrific things that have led to horrific outcomes, and yet the Left wants you to believe the Court is better than the other branches of government.”
Colins has decided to draw and defend her line on stare decisis. Her problems are twofold. One a blind acceptance of precedence would endorse so the Supreme Court’s great judicial travesties of all time, to include Franklin Roosevelt’s interment of over one hundred thousands citizens and residents of Japanese descent. Two, a nuanced defense would require Collins to find a constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s invention of the Right of Privacy. Good luck Susan.