Judge should be at the top of the line next time Democrats choose Supreme Court nominee, writer says
Opening the floodgates for (short-term) hundreds of abortions for undocumented women and girls and an unlimited number going forward—well, you would expect pro-abortionists to very grateful. The prospect of Texas becoming an “abortion sanctuary,” as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton feared in opposing the abortion of “Jane Doe,” is music to the ears of the likes of Mark Joseph Stern of Slate magazine .
That is why he lavished praise on Judge Patricia Millett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. You’ll recall she was the dissenter last Friday in a three-judge panel of the same court which concluded it only made sense, legally and otherwise, to give the Trump administration until the end of October to find a sponsor for the 17-year-old girl.
When on Tuesday the full court D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the panel’s decision, the 6-3 ruling was to send the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. Within hours, Judge Chutkan ordered the government to “promptly and without delay” transport the teen to a Texas abortion provider. Soon after “Jane Doe” aborted her 16-week-old baby.
Stern correctly points out the full court’s majority dutifully followed Judge Millett: “Her dissent was so powerful that when the full D.C. Circuit eventually reversed the panel’s ruling, it did nothing more than explain in a single paragraph that Millett had it right.”
What should be her reward for advancing “a woman’s right to bodily autonomy?” Stern says nothing but gold: “It should also earn Millett a spot at the very top of the Supreme Court shortlist the next time a Democratic president gets tasked with making a selection.”
Click here for more from NRL News Today