Barrett says Roe v. Wade is not a 'super-precedent'

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) followed some of her colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee in asking Judge Amy Coney Barrett about her views on Roe v. Wade during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing Tuesday.

Barrett again didn't explicitly reveal whether she thinks the case revolving around abortion rights was rightly or wrongly decided, but Klobuchar did appear to succeed at prompting Barrett to reveal whether thinks there's a chance the case could be overturned in the future.

In response to Klobuchar, Barrett said (reaffirming an opinion she expressed in a previous scholarly article) Roe should not be considered a super-precedent — that is, per The New York Times, cases that "are so deeply embedded in the fabric of the law they should be especially hard to overturn."

The reasoning Barrett provided Wednesday was not related to the judicial process behind Roe, but rather the definition of super-precedent. Barrett argued that her use of the term is based on the scholarly legal definition of the word, adding that legal scholars across the philosophical spectrum don't consider Roe a super-precedent because it is still challenged. She noted that doesn't mean those scholars think it should be overruled.

More stories from
Biden's post-election tightrope walk
The Democrats' desperate SCOTUS scaremongering
An anxious poll-watcher's guide to 2020