One of President Trump’s judicial nominees said Wednesday the Supreme Court rulings desegregating schools and legalizing interracial marriage were well-decided, but he refused to say if he approved of the ruling that legalized abortion.
John B. Nalbandian, a Cincinnati lawyer nominated to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the right to an abortion is one not specified in the Constitution, which may come up before him as a judge, so he couldn’t weigh in on his opinion of that Supreme Court case.
But Mr. Nalbandian said he would respect all Supreme Court precedent if he’s confirmed to the 6th Circuit.
“The area generally of modern substantive Due Process or unenumerated rights, specifically under the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th amendments, are still subject to developing case law,” Mr. Nalbandian said. “We see it all the time, and I’m unwilling to wade into that because I think that issue will and can come up.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat, disagreed with Mr. Nalbandian’s willingness to say whether two other Supreme Court cases were well decided, but wouldn’t say the same about Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion.
“With all due respect, I fail to understand why Roe v. Wade is less well established, less well accepted, less well entrenched or enshrined in our law than Loving v. Virginia,” Mr. Blumenthal said, referencing the 1967 case outlawing bans on interracial marriage.
“I’m not saying it’s less well entrenched … what I am saying, senator, is all of those cases are governing precedent for a circuit court nominee, and I would apply them faithfully,” Mr. Nalbandian said.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.