What a Supreme Court Justice should be focused on is the Constitution, not on some arbitrary notion that every decision that’s ever been rendered must stand forever regardless of whether it’s right or wrong.
Susan Collins tells Trump: Any nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade is unacceptable
No one should be surprised she’s taking this position. Susan Collins has been pro-choice for her entire public life, and with the Republican caucus having no margin for error on a confirmation vote, she knows she can demand whatever she wants.
Are we about to get a game of chicken between Collins and Trump? It sure sounds like she’s ready for one:
Of course, Collins can make any demand she wants about SCOTUS nominees. Once a Justice is confirmed, no one has any control over how that Justice votes on any given case. Ask George H.W. Bush about David Souter. I’m sure he remembers him well.
Collins can’t demand that a nominee say how he or she would vote on a case that would overturn Roe v. Wade, and she knows that, which is why she’s putting so much emphasis on “respect for precedent.” Collins doesn’t really believe that no decision, once rendered, can ever be overturned. If that were the case, she would believe Plessy vs. Ferguson should still be the law today, and we would still have segregated schools. Obviously she doesn’t believe that. But she believes precedent is absolute when it comes to abortion, and that’s what all this is really all about.
In confirmation hearings, any nominee will speak to the idea that precedent is important, but if Collins demands a commitment to never overturn any precedent, under any circumstance, a nominee will say that no one can say beyond a shadow of all doubt how a vote on a hypothetical case might go. Collins can say all she wants that no nominee is acceptable who would overturn Roe v. Wade, but she’ll never get a nominee on the record as taking that position. So if she decides to oppose a nominee based on her belief that he or she would overturn Roe, that will strictly be Collins’s opinion. She even goes so far as to say it would be inappropriate to ask how a nominee would vote on a given case, which is why she’ll try to get a sense of it with the emphasis on precedent.
As a matter of the law, the massive focus on precedent is absurd. What a Supreme Court Justice should be focused on is the Constitution, not on some arbitrary notion that every decision that’s ever been rendered must stand forever regardless of whether it’s right or wrong. But of course, that’s not what Collins really means with her emphasis on precedent. What she really means is: Don’t mess with abortions!
Aside from that, I seriously doubt she cares about stare decisis at all.
