The Point: Is Roe ‘Super-Precedent’?

It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s…super-precedent! For the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, I’m John Stonestreet with The Point.

Watching confirmation hearings for Judge Neal Gorsuch, David French couldn’t believe his ears. So at National Review, he reported how California senator Dianne Feinstein demanded that Judge Gorsuch recognize Roe v. Wade as “super-precedent.”

Gorsuch answered that the 1973 ruling had been “reaffirmed many times,” but refused to elevate Roe to this imaginary sacrosanct status that she apparently wanted.

We’ve heard this sort of thing before. Social progressives want abortion to be treated as “settled law,” never again open for challenge from the Supreme Court. That’s just nonsense. As French points out, the Supreme Court has overruled itself dozens of times, including in Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 decision that declared racial segregation constitutional. For over half a century it was “settled law,” until later justices realized the Court was wrong.

Look, Roe v. Wade codified killing the weakest Americans. It’s bad law, and by the way, “super-precedent” isn’t a thing.


No, Senator Feinstein, Roe v. Wade Is Not a ‘Superprecedent’
  • David French | National Review | March 21, 2017

Comment Policy: Commenters are welcome to argue all points of view, but they are asked to do it civilly and respectfully. Comments that call names, insult other people or groups, use profanity or obscenity, repeat the same points over and over, or make personal remarks about other commenters will be deleted. After multiple infractions, commenters may be banned.