Since the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, many Democratic candidates have campaigned on the abortion issue as they try win the upcoming midterm elections.
Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Alabama William Boyd said, “We don’t appreciate the government stepping into things that are private, things that relate to our health care.”
Wednesday on WVNN’s “The Yaffee Program,” Greg Cook, the Republican nominee for Alabama Supreme Court, said the high court got it right on giving power back to the states on the issue of abortion.
“I think that decision is evidence the court is saying ‘we’re going to put things where they should be,'” Cook said, “and so the court was saying that this issue, abortion, is a highly divisive issue that good people can believe things on both sides and therefore the decision should be determined by the political branches rather than fiats by the courts.”
The Alabama Supreme Court candidate said the argument he’s heard by many Democrats against the Dobbs decision is baseless.
“To me,” he said, “when the Democrats say it’s evidence the court has run amok, I think it’s just the opposite. It’s evidence of humility by the court, modesty by the court, saying ‘we’re not going to order people to do things, we’re going to let the political processes play out,’ and that’s what the Constitution’s designed to be.”
Cook believes the Supreme court was right in deciding based on a textualist point of view.
“If you look, the word abortion doesn’t appear in the Constitution, where as the Second Amendment clearly has language that’s directly in the Constitution about the right to bear arms,” he said. “So I think when you’re looking at a document like the Constitution, you need to look at the words being used in it, and those are the touchstones to making your decision … I think this court is being modest in trying to give back to the political branches that they’re entitled to have.”
He also used the Dobbs decision as an example of how he would approach interpreting laws if he’s elected to Alabama’s highest court.
“I don’t think there’s any difference in the balance of power between the three branches,” he said comparing Alabama’s government to the federal government. “I think the judicial branch is there to interpret the law not to make the law and that’s exactly what I will do.”
Cook said he sees Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch as a model he would try to follow and a judge.
“He believes in textualism,” Cook said. “He believes in following the plain meaning of the law. There’s a doctrine called a tradition public meaning, and so what this doctrine means is what are that are on the page mean to the normal person on the street when the law was passed … and therefore the democratic concept. The idea that someone voted on that, people understood what the word meant then. If the words evolve overtime the law shouldn’t change.
“The law should be applied as it was when it was voted on from the people entitled to vote on it.”
Meanwhile, Cook said he’s the right person for the Alabama Supreme Court because he has experience and knowledge.
And, he’s a “nerd.”
“Greg Cook is frankly boring and predictable,” he said about himself, “and by that I mean I’m going to follow the law. I’ve written a two-volume, 2,000-page book on the rules for court in Alabama. I’ve handled over 1,000 matters. I’ve tried jury trials, I’ve tried bench trials, I’ve done appeals in front of the Alabama Supreme Court. I know what I’m doing. I’m qualified for this job.
“I’m just a nerd and that’s exactly what our people should want. They should want someone on the court to get the answers right.”