Posted on 09/13/2005 4:42:05 PM PDT by Mike10542
This is for all the naysayers on Roberts and others who like to read the misleading headlines of the AP about Roberts and his confirmation hearing so far. First off, he never said he actually respected Roe v. Wade or that it deserves respect or anything directly about Roe. What he did do was talk generally about stare decisis and the ideas of precedent. He said that any case (including Roe) that has been decided by the Supreme COurt deserves respect in that it is a precedent of the court. Being in my first year of law school, we have quickly learned that stare deicis is an important part of the foundation of our law and when you encounter an issue before the court, you should check all cases that were decided on the issue before it. This is what Roberts meant. If the court already decided on an issue, you should respect the case and give more weight to the fact that it is a precedent. However, this by no means says you can't after giving extra weight to the issue, overturn it if it was originally terrible leagal reasoning (as Roe v. Wade was). So relax and stop listening to the MSM who is trying to divide us by misleading what Roberts is saying at his hearings (and doing a good job of it I may add!!!).
Little heavy on the trigger finger there.
How many times are you going to post this?
Echo. Echo. Echo. echo. echo....
Sorry guys, my computer went crazy!!!! Looks like they removed it already.
It bears repeating. But probably not 5 times.
"If I've Said it once, I've said it a thousand times".
The Washington post even used words he didn't actually use.
My favorite thing he said about Stare Decisis was when he explained that it was much more important when discussing court decisions about legislation, because we need laws to mean the same thing day after day, and if the court got it wrong the legislature can fix it.
But for constitutional issues, the only people that can fix it is the supreme court, so "precedent" isn't as important as getting it correct.
I agree with him. Even if a judge thinks a previous case wrongly interpreted a law, if the same law comes before him it is best to interpret it the same way, because that is what people are now expecting.
That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. From my own perspective, I assign great weight to any advice my doctor offers me. However, I'm wise enough to know that all advice is not good advice, and when my own sensibilities tell me that my doctor is wrong, it's incumbent upon me not to take him at his word, but seek another opinion.
Has the MSM ever mentioned that Jane Roe was never gang raped?
OK, what exactly did Roberts say about Roe being settled law? The term "settled law" is used in the Wash Post headline.
No,that was my point. He never said it was settled, he said it was 'settled' as a precedent meaning exactly that, it is a precedent of the court. That isn't to say you can't overturn precedent.
Well he said it was settled precedent as the law of the land because the court in Casey upheld Roe, rather than choosing to revisit the holding. I think the comment does indeed send a signal, and reduces the odds that Roberts will vote to reverse Roe, absent new "facts."
Still, he is just stating a fact, not an opinon. In Casey, the court reaffirmed the ruling in roe, thus "settling" the fact that it is precedent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.