Outraged over the June 24 Supreme Court ruling [6 to 3] overturning 1973 Roe v. Wade, 32-year-old-Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for the impeachments of 54-yearld old Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch and 57-year-old Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, both swore at their Senate Confirmation hearings that Roe v. Wade was settled law. Ocasio-Cortez thinks that lying under oath is an impeachable offense but neither justice commented on how they would rule on a future case, invoking the so-called Ginsburg Rule. Ginsburg Rule set the standard for nominees to the Supreme Court at their confirmation hearings where nominees politely demur on answering hypothetical question about future cases. AOC knows that Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh never said or speculated how they would rule on Dobbs v. Jackson Health Organization.
AOC thinks that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh committed to preserving Roe v. Wade, when in fact they simply agreed that Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling offering women federal protection for medical procedures across all 50 states, was settled law or established legal precedent for now. When the took up the case of Dobbs v. Jackson, it turned Roe v. Wade and 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where the Supreme Court ruled that the time frame for conducting abortions was not, as Roe v. Wade said, the trimester system but rather fetal viability. When the High Court took up Dobbs v. Jackson, ruling that the Constitution did not confer any Constitutional right to abortion, in effect overturning 1973 Roe v. Wade and 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it was new. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that under the 14th Amendment Due Process clause women had a “right to privacy.”
So when Ocasio-Cortez accuses Gorsuch and Kavanaugh of lying, she’s not looking at the Ginsburg Rule, requiring justices to demur in confirmation hearings on how they’d rule on future High Court deliberations. When Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said they viewed Roe v. Wade as settled law or established judicial precedent, they didn’t swear under oath that they’d defend Roe v. Wade under all circumstances, including pending cases before the Supreme Court. Saying it’s an “impeachable offense” to lie under oath, Ocasio-Cortez grabs headlines with her base and the U.S. media, but establishes nothing other than stealing meaningless headlines. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V. and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) also expressed frustration for voting for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh based on their statements about Roe v. Wade being settled law or established judicial precedent.
Ocasio-Cortez said on NBC News “Meet the Press” yesterday that the Supreme Court faced a “crisis of legitimacy,” certainly speaking for herself and her liberal base. Ocaso-Cortez doesn’t like the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. But, instead to dealing with the substantive legal issues, Ocasio-Cortez feeds the Yellow Journalism industry, more interested in soundbites and headlines that dealing with real issues. Dobbs v. Jackson never addressed the 14th amendment issue regarding medical privacy of women seeking abortion. Nothing in Dobbs v. Jackson addressed the Due Process right to privacy, only concluded that the Constitution does not guarantee abortion. But Roe v. Wade was never about abortion, as it’s been known in the media, but about medical privacy related to the Fourteenth Amendment.
Ocasio-Cortez whips up the frenzy with her base and the press but doesn’t address that Article 3 giving the judicial branch of government independence over Article 1, the legislative branch. “If we allow Supreme Court nominees to lie under oath and secure lifetime appointments to the highest court of the land and then issue, without basis,” said Ocasio-Cortez. Whether the Supreme Court ruled not to Ocasio-Cortez liking, it doesn’t mean that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to anyone in the their confirmation hearings. Ocasio-Cortez knows that under the Ginsburg Rule to nominee can’t tip their hand about how they’d rule on any case. “We must see that through. There must be consequences for such a deeply destabilizing action and a hostile takeover of our democratic institutions,” Ocasio-Cortez said, saying nothing what she would do with a liberal court majority.
Ocasio-Cortez likes to whip up her base and the media into a frenzy but she has no grounds for complaining, accusing Gorsuch and Kavanaugh of lying at their confirmation hearings. Whether any Senator conditioned their vote on an expectation that Roe v. Wade was settled law, can’t deny the fact that under the Ginsburg Rule no nominee can signal how they’d rule on a future case. If Ocasio-Cortez, or anyone else, wants to make a case for medical privacy under the 14th Amendment, that would be well taken. If she questioned whether justices allowed religious convictions about abortion to color their judicial decision making, that too would be a valid concern, especially of separation of church and state. Whatever way the court ruled, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Dobbs v. Jackson there are other valid arguments the court should face in the future.
About the Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.
