Republican presidential candidate John Kasich told a voter in New Hampshire Wednesday that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion in the United States is the "law of the land."
"I would like to ask whether you can respect the Roe versus Wade decision, and I ask because as a lifelong libertarian, I'm looking for a candidate to support who is both a fiscal conservative and not a threat to a woman's right to control her own body," said a voter at a town hall event in Salem, New Hampshire.
"Obviously, it's the law of the land now, and we live with the law of the land," Kasich replied. Watch the video below:
Earlier this week, in an interview with CNN, Kasich suggested Republicans focus "too much" on the issue of abortion at the expense of other issues like "early childhood, infant mortality, the environment, education."
A request to Kasich's campaign from THE WEEKLY STANDARD for further comment about Roe v. Wade has not yet been returned. (The campaign has responded. See update.)
Update: Kasich campaign spokesman Chris Schrimpf responds by noting that in a press availability after the event, the Ohio governor touted his pro-life record. Here's what Kasich said, according to Schrimpf: "There are restrictions that we put in, we've done a lot of things in Ohio effecting abortions after 20 weeks, but until that law changes, that's the law. If the court makes a ruling, they make a ruling, but I think there are absolutely legitimate and constitutional restrictions that can be put on it."
Asked about Kasich's own judicial appointments if he were elected president, Schrimpf did not say whether Kasich would apply a "litmus test" with respect to overturning Roe. "He respects the constitutionally-proscribed independence of the judiciary, but in the judicial appointments he has made as governor he has consistently sought judges who, as President Reagan said, practice ‘judicial restraint,’ and understand that the courts are not 'vehicles for political action and social experimentation’ and he would pursue that approach as President," said Schrimpf in an email.
Ted Cruz, who in 1996 clerked for then-chief justice William Rehnquist and is now a first-term senator and GOP presidential candidate, has assumed the leadership of conservatives aiming to rein in a Supreme Court they fault for imposing on the country rights not found in the Constitution. This is hardly a new issue for conservatives; in a past now faraway, it was also an issue for some liberals.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made news recently, when she said—bragged, it seemed—that she and her fellow liberals on the Court were going out of their way to stifle their individual voices in high-profile cases.
For political observers, the story of the Supreme Court’s recently concluded term was the clash of two great colliding forces. On one side stood the Court’s always-unified liberal bloc, fortified by the apostasies of Republican-appointed Justice Anthony Kennedy and sometimes Chief Justice John Roberts, most prominently in cases involving same-sex marriage and Obamacare. On the other side stood Justice Antonin Scalia, a lion in winter, caustic and witty in his dissents.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, while dictating one of the most sweeping social changes in history in his opinion in the Obergefell v. Hodges case that legalized same-sex marriage across America, waxes magnanimous towards foes of the expansion of the millennia-old definition of marriage.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in King v. Burwell is disappointing. But it also provides a welcome moment of clarity: We can finally dispense with the false belief that the Supreme Court will save us from Obamacare.
Later this summer the Supreme Court will decide whether the Constitution requires that every state recognize same-sex marriages. Thus, in a ritual that would seem bizarre if it had not become so ordinary, nine lawyers will issue a decision authoritatively resolving subtle and far-reaching issues that are not distinctively legal. After all, the ancient institution of marriage implicates difficult questions about history, culture, psychology, and morality.
Had Jeremiah Wright’s antics not forced Barack Obama to expound famously on race in 2008, the most significant speech of his short Senate tenure would have been his 2006 remarks on religion and democracy. Appearing before Call to Renewal’s conference on “Building a Covenant for a New America,” Obama urged Christian activists and Democratic voters to reconsider the relationship between church and state. Mankind may have grappled with our dueling obligations to Caesar and
In the initial years following Obamacare’s passage, Republicans remained solidly united on one crucial point: Obamacare needs to be repealed and replaced, not “fixed.” But some Republicans and center-right pundits have since decided that trying to fix the president’s signature legislation is a good thing. Witness this advice from the Wall Street Journal editorial board. The Journal calls for a “subsidies-for-deregulation deal”