Supreme Court's future rides on Ginsburg's health


No, I just don’t consider that a particularly relevant case. After all, as the justices stated: “The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds.” It would be a bold circuit court indeed that would try to overrule a Supreme Court judgment.



Amazingly, all 4 (ALL FOUR!!!) Supreme Court Justices appointed by Democratic Presidents (Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer) voted in favor of the California law forcing pro-life women’s health centers to promote abortion. So, it matters greatly which President makes the nominations.
On the other hand, all 5 Justices (Thomas, Gorsuch, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito) nominated by Republican Presidents voted in favor of free speech and religious liberty for pro-life women’s health centers.

1 Like


That doesn’t mean they have to be amoral or immoral. Not the same thing as politics.

The case of Carhart vs. Gonzalez is illustrative. All Repub appointees voted to uphold state bans on partial birth abortion. All Dem appointees voted to make it a “constitutional right”, preventing states from banning it.

The Dem appointees made a decision favoring serious immorality. The Repubs did the opposite.

1 Like


Revisiting this thread after an absence of some time.

Last week, I was present when a priest gave my father, also a “liberal” federal judge (albeit appointed, like Justice Sotomayor, to the federal bench by George H.W. Bush), last rites.

Although his death will give President Trump another appointment to the federal bench, I know everyone here will join me in prayer for my father, and for Justice Sotomayor. I myself wish her nothing but good health and a long, happy life.

Thanks in advance.



I’m sorry.

I’m keeping your dad and your family in my prayers.

1 Like


Same. Like a lot of people here, I pray every night for people on CAF and their families. I don’t know it for a fact, but I suspect most do.

1 Like


Clearly everyone knows how much it matters. If it didn’t we wouldn’t have disgraceful spectacles like the Kavanaugh (Thomas, Bork…) hearings.



True. Or Garland, for that matter.



But wasn’t that different? There weren’t any hearings, were there, let along any attempts to smear the man? Didn’t Mitch McConnell just ignore the nomination, more or less, and refuse to hold hearings?



Yes, and some might argue that was its own kind of disgraceful spectacle.



I don’t recall any spectacle at all.



I would argue that it was kind of a wimpish approach to what they wanted. A stronger approach would have been to have hearings and then outrightly reject him. That said, the republicans had every right to do what they did, but it was clear they did it because it was because it was politically expedient. There is no principle involved, because I can guarantee you that if a vacancy occurs in early 2020, the republicans won’t wait till the next election to have hearings and confirmation.



I really hope that Ginsburg can hold out. We don’t need 3 supreme seats placed by Trump. Ugh. . .



It was neither disgraceful nor a spectacle; it was hardball politics, an entirely different matter than the personal smears directed at destroying a man’s reputation for political ends.



My condolences on the loss of your father. I will keep him and your family in prayer.

1 Like


History doesn’t support a Republican guarantee of Right to Life law. History, it’s the craziest thing. sigh

do we need to refresh our memories that Roe v Wade was brought to us by 6 of 7 republican appointed supreme court judges, in favor. Of course most recently we have Kavanaugh siding with liberals not to defund planned parenthood.

It’s got to burn some right wing socks, and a scurvy of savvy apologetics to boot will be forthcoming I’m sure, but in the end it will be the hearts of persons touched by love, compassion, and grace that will end the act. Not a law.



it would be nice if persons touched by love, compassion and grace had anything to say about it. Because it was a S.C. decision, we don’t. Maybe someday the Court will turn the issue back to the people. People in Dem states probably will keep it legal, but a lot of states won’t, mine included.

My socks are still okay; slightly above room temperature, I expect, particularly on the inside.
This decision was not about abortion at all.

1 Like


I was joining in a discussion about “abortion” as had you, above. I have a view on the topic as anyone and spoke it. Thank you for your critique and opinion.


closed #63

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit