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 ...
ever justice has to say that. an appeals court justice can't over turn roe so he has to say that or he cant get confirmed.
to a lower court judge - Roe is the law of the land.
Of course, as an appeals court judge he must follow Supreme Court precedent as the law of the land. It's another story as a Supreme Court Justice where he makes the decisions for the appellate and lower courts to follow.
Give him a break. At least we did not get Gonzalez.
Actually, he said earlier that it was bad law as far as the Constitution was concerned, but that he had no problem going by the laws of the land.
That I think is the simple view of how he sees this.
I think if abortion comes up again, that he would vote to overturn current law and it would go back to the states.
Meaning California, New York and a few other states would still have all kinds of abortions.
Amen to that!
Interesting choice of words. This would indicate that there could be something in his legal views that would prevent him from fully and faithfully applying that precdent.
Sorry, no. Roberts has argued against Roe before.
Some people will never be satisfied.
Even if Roe is overturned (unlikely) - it will be tossed back to the states level. And any state overturning it will speedily drown in increased welfare payments and go bankrupt.
Drama queen.
actually, I think you would find 40+ states allowing abortion within 12 weeks. where most states would really crack down, is with partial birth abortion and parental notification.
Roe v Wade is a Supreme Court decision, right? That's not the same as the "law of the land."
If congress were to write legislation on the subject of abortion, the Supreme Court could rule on such a law in any way it sees fit. I understand a strong tendency of the Court to respect opinions of past Courts, but they don't have to, right?
The emphasis on Roe v Wade being the "law of the land" seems misplaced to me. But perhaps I'm missing something.
And so it begins.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I really love it when the Bush Bashers come out of the woodwork with their one-sided selective quotes ...
"Abortion rights groups contend that during his days as a lawyer in the administration of President George H.W. Bush he tried to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion. Roberts helped write a brief that stated, "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
There's nothing in his personal view because his personal view doesn't, or shouldn't, matter in interpreting the law. What does matter is whether or not he believes that Roe vs. Wade is a bad law and if something in his judicial review would keep him from fully and faithfully applying that precedent. I'm guessing that since he's a conservative constitutionalist that he doesn't see a right to privacy for abortion enumerated in the constitution. Roe vs. Wade is unconstitutional.
We need another gem like him for the next vacancy.
This is nonsense. I'm 100% pro life and Roberts' comment is the correct one. He understands it's not his job to make the law.
We need to change the law(s) regarding infanticide.
Have you let your representatives know your thoughts on this subject? We all need to do that.
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.