[counterpunch]

Roberts's answer during his appeals court hearing was similar in substance to "Humility and self-restraint require the judiciary to adhere to its limited role and recognize that where applicable precedent exists, courts are not free to ignore it."

And yes, that is extremely standard for an appeals court judge, since they are bound by stare decisis. But I was only using that to establish her deference to stare decisis, because Supreme Court Justices are not bound by anything.

What is significant here is where I pointed out line for line in red and blue how Miers painstakingly paraphrased each point laid out in Casey for upholding of Roe. That is unique to Miers, and was deliberate. She was signaling in no uncertain terms that she will not overturn Roe.

Because all of her criteria for revisiting a decision is addressed in Casey -- alas, plucked directly from Casey -- it is thus already enshrined in case law, and therefore a non-starter for Miers due to stare decisis. What she has done in her questionnaire is to make it painstakingly clear in a substantive way that she believes Roe v. Wade is "settled law".

 

[JusticeForAll76]

I think it is the other way around. This is a standard answer, and that standard answer was then used in Casey.

Campare Robert's response at his CJ hearing:

"The principles of stare decisis look at a number of factors. Settled expectations is one of them, as you mentioned. Whether or not particular precedents have proven to be unworkable is another consideration on the other side -- whether the doctrinal bases of a decision had been eroded by subsequent developments"