FILE - In this Feb. 5, 2016 file photo, Daniele da Silva, who is seven months pregnant, poses for a photo as she sits inside her home in a slum of Recife, Brazil. Da Silva said she had Chikungunya a couple of months ago and her ultrasound scan and other exams of her baby are normal. In Zika-struck Brazil, a debate over whether to loosen the country’s strict abortion laws has sparked a backlash from the mothers of children with birth defects. (AP Photo/Felipe Dana, File)

Is Dianne Feinstein Starting to Crack on Abortion?

It seems like just yesterday Republican turncoat Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania was enlightening us all about how one of the most embarrassing Supreme Court decisions of all time, Roe v. Wade, should be considered “super-duper precedent.”

For those unfamiliar with the technical language associated with American jurisprudence, a “super-duper precedent” is just below “triple-dog-duper precedent” and just above “extra-nifty precedent.”

But besides demonstrating the desperation lawmakers like Specter experience in their attempts to legitimize the macabre, the reason this stands out is because fellow child-killing advocate Dianne Feinstein of California seemed to reveal a downgrading of Roe’s status yesterday. During the Gorsuch hearings, Feinstein referred to the abortion decision as a meager “super-precedent.”

Stop the presses, the Queen Bee of Abortion in the U.S. Senate has dropped the “duper.”

It remains astounding to me that grown adults in what is supposedly the world’s most prestigious deliberative body talk like this and pretend the rest of us aren’t rolling our eyes. Simply put, there is no such thing as a “super-precedent.” There is precedent and there is unprecedented.

And where Roe v. Wade is concerned, the real issue has always been its unprecedented war on science, rationality, the Constitution, and yes, almost 200 years of legal precedent that said the state had a compelling interest in protecting the unalienable right to life for all Americans.

Feinstein’s, and before her Specter’s, linguistic buffoonery does nothing but reveal the insecurity they feel attempting to defend the indefensible. It is an unintended admission that they know Roe could never stand on its own merits if challenged on constitutional, moral, or scientific grounds. Since it can’t, and they know it can’t, they pitifully try to convince everyone that it is irreversible “settled law.” Nonsense.

There is no court ruling so settled that it couldn’t be reversed or overturned in light of newer, better evidence. As David French notes,

“The Supreme Court has overruled itself dozens of times over the years, reversing some entrenched and culturally important precedents in the process.”

Roe has been the unjust law of the land for 44 years. But Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the separate but equal doctrine and created legal segregation in the country, was the unjust law of the land for 58 years. Imagine the Arlen Specters and Dianne Feinsteins of the early 1950s fearfully warning against the Court overturning the “super-precedent” of Plessy.

Their arguments would have been foolish and wrong then. They’re even dumber today.

About the author

Peter Heck

View all posts