In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
As a Supreme Court Justice he has no obligation whatsoever to recognize Roe v. Wade as anything other than the trash it really is.
I am so happy that he is going to back up wrong decisions. Hewitt says he has great "mainstream credentials". That should make all of us warm and fuzzie. I guess he makes great mainstream laws out of whole cloth. I sure hope he is not another Souter.
I like Thomas's view on "settled law."
Why can't we get another like him?
ML/NJ
But the question he was asked to solicit that response was whether he agreed with the decision. He dodged the question, rather than saying he agreed that such a right existed.
An appeals judge is bound that way, a Supreme Court Justice, is not.
The other quote, "we continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled.", came in a brief he wrote for President George H.W. Bush's administration in a 1991 abortion case, may not necessarily reflect his personal beliefs either.
An appeals judge is bound to apply SC precedents. A Supreme is not necessarily bound to stay with the precedents established by earlier Supremes, if he thinks they are bad Constitutional law