The issue of which Supreme Court rulings establish jurisprudence in United States law arises again during the third day of hearings to consider the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Highest Court.
–
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Republican Lindsay Graham, raised the issue at the beginning of the hearing on Wednesday.
–
Barrett generated a lot of attention yesterday by saying that he does not consider the Roe v. Wade, with which the Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973, as jurisprudence because there is much controversy in this regard.
–
Jurisprudence includes the “Cases that are so established that neither political actors nor people seriously seek their annulment. And I am answering a lot of questions about Roe, which indicates that Roe does not fall into that category.”he explained.
–
Barret cited as an example of jurisprudence the cases Brown v. Board of Education, which in 1954 outlawed racial segregation in public schools, and Marbury v. Madison, who in 1803 gave the courts the authority to annul laws when they deemed them unconstitutional.
–
Barrett made his comments when asked by Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar about an article the judge had published on the definition of jurisprudence.
—
:quality(80)/cdn-kiosk-api.telegraaf.nl/7f61f34a-0e2c-11eb-951e-02d2fb1aa1d7.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1)