Posted on 07/19/2005 7:23:47 PM PDT by bimboeruption
"Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for the appeals court for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
As a lower court nominee, Roberts had to say that. Any lower court's rulings are controlled by the Supreme Court.
Once he gets on the high court bench, all such bets are off.
Now calm down and read up on this guy before you start shrieking that we're all DOOOOMED!
To prevent duplication, do not alter the heading.
Well, he was not being confirmed for a position in which he did not HAVE to follow precedent then...he was just a lowly court judge and had to rely on precedent.
He wrote in a brief argument before the SCOTUS when he was a lawyer that Roe should be overturned.
He is a Federalist Society member. Regardless of what he says in his confirmation hearings, I believe it is quite clear he would have no problem overturning Roe.
Good question. In the past few weeks I've searched endlessly with nothing to show for it. Is he a collectivist or individual rights guy? Nobody knows I think.
Judge Roberts' little children are cute as buttons too.
"Meaning California, New York and a few other states would still have all kinds of abortions."
Unless the House & Senate pass a law. It seems to me that the Federal Government is already well within the territory of such laws, in general. Do the states really have significant jurisdiction anymore, if the Feds want it?
exactly...Judge Roberts only said that Roe is the law (as it stands) However if Roe is ever in front of the court for consideration, and he is asked whether or not Roe is constitutional...then his 1981 comments are important. That Roe (as it stands) on its own merits has NO basis in the constitution. Bush hit a 30 year home run tonight, and once he is confirmed Reinquist will retire and Bush will get the woman everyone tonight is screaming about, Ms. Brown. The court will be set for the rest of my life, thank God and GWB.
Clearly, if both extremes oppose this guy, he must have been the right pick.
By the way, Roberts clearly disagrees with Roe on legal matters, and I think when the opportunity comes, when the time is right and the challenge right, he will vote to overturn Roe, or at the very least will help restrict it. But until then, it is his duty to follow the law and not ignore it or mutilate it like his liberal colleagues on the bench tend to do all the time.
Good post!
I beleive you'll be able to keep your tagline for life!
"The beauty is the Dems can't prove it and he should just give them Bader Ginsburg's answer of not answering that question."
This I beleive, is the key. It comes down to the fact that they hired a pro (of both acting and gov't) to coach this guy. That is the key.
You do know that most states have banned Medicaid-funded abortions while, over the same period, welfare caseloads have declined dramatically.
Funny how that happens.
"We are extremely disappointed that President Bush has chosen such a divisive nominee for the highest court in the nation, rather than a consensus nominee who would protect individual liberty and uphold Roe v. Wade." - NARAL Pro-Choice America.
A host of NARAL's graying harridans will have passed to their eternal reward when Justice Roberts is stripping the bogus penumbras and emanations from the Constitution.
You are accusing Bush of allowing a holocaust and playing games with the title of this thread.
Why is thread being allowed?
Correct, and that is, basically, the difference between appointing a conservative judge and an originalist. A conservative judge will make judicial decisions based on his agenda and will read the law in ways to suit them. That, to me, is as bad as when a liberal judge does it. An originalist will look at the document, whether the Constitution or a Congressional statute and will determine what the law was intended to do at the time of its passing. (Justice Scalia, for example, doesn't buy into the concept, in Constitutional law, of discerning the Founders' intent, but instead tries to determine what it meant to the PEOPLE that ratified it.) In any case, it is a happy coincidence that the very great majority of "conservative" positions in the legal sense would be promoted by an originalist interpretation of the document. By appointing an originalist, you don't have to worry about each and every issue. The judge will read what the Constitution (or law) says. If the point of view that you're looking to advance isn't in it, then it is up to the People, through their elected legislature to enact a law to correct the problem, not up to the judiciary to create it by decree.
I was referring to a time when abortion is overturned on the Federal level.
It goes back to the states.
At first all the democrat legislators would pass state law making all abortion the laws of their state.
Then petitions of the people would come in most states saying NO ABORTION except for the cases of rape, incest or because of real medical risks.
I think that would pass most states and stop well over 90% of current abortions.
Of course, the Court must be presented with a compelling appeal, and then the Court must decide to hear the appeal. And that, theoretically, may not happen in twenty years.
That was a horrible comment.
Ridiculous. RoeVWade isn't going to be overturned, overnight and PresBush can't change law as POTUS. Get real. Not only is it unfair to say that, you have no evidence to support such a statement. If approved, Roberts could turn out to be another pro-life SCJustice like Scalia, Thomas and Reinquest. I hope is that Roberts will side with the uncosntitutional nature of RoeVWade
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.