Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., says that as president she would impose a pro-Roe v. Wade litmus test on judicial nominees, because anybody who doesn’t believe it is settled law is the equivalent of a racist, anti-Semite, or homophobe.
Gillibrand made the comments in an editorial board meeting with the Des Moines Register as Democratic candidates jockey to see who can stake out the most extreme positions on abortion.
“I will only appoint judges and justices that see Roe v Wade as settled precedent, because it is,” she said, arguing that it was a matter of “basic human rights.”
Asked if such a litmus test was an encroachment on judicial independence, she waved away the idea.
“I think there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society have decided that the other side is not acceptable,” she explained. “Imagine saying that it’s okay to appoint a judge who is racist, or anti-Semitic, or homophobic. Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America I think that we have — I don’t think that those are political issues anymore.”
Gillibrand went on to argue that judges who disagreed with Roe were trying to “to impose their faith on Americans,” contrary to the “separation of church and state.”
She said: “I believe that for all of these issues, they are not issues that there is a fair other side. There’s no moral equivalency when you come to racism. And I do not believe there is a moral equivalency when it comes to changing laws that deny women reproductive freedom.”
Funny enough, Gillibrand also slammed Republicans for having “politicized the court” and that it was important to create an independent commission to determine how to de-politicize it.
Gillibrand has been having a hard time staying above 0% in polls and has become increasingly desperate to make her mark in a crowded field. The New York Times recently ran a story musing, “Kirsten Gillibrand Is Struggling. Will Abortion Rights Be Her Rallying Cry?” Now, she’s trying to perpetuate the idea that there can be no “other side” in a debate on which the American people have been closely divided for decades.
The full video of the interview is here; the discussion of the judiciary starts around the 23-minute mark.
