Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, believes Judge Roberts is an excellent choice: “He was an extraordinary lawyer, and I am persuaded he well be an exceptional justice. President Bush, in my opinion, has kept his promise to nominate an individual who will interpret, not rewrite the Constitution.”
Fahling noted that as deputy solicitor in the Regan Administration, Roberts had argued in a brief that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but that in his confirmation hearings to the court of appeals, Roberts stated that Roe v. Wade is settled law that he would faithfully apply as a judge. “These are not inconsistent positions,” said Fahling; “They reflect a consistent and principled jurisprudence that understands the principle of authority and the rule of law.”
Fahling explained that “as a government lawyer, Roberts could argue that Roe should be reversed, but as an appellate court judge, he held an office under the ultimate authority, by constitutional design, of the Supreme Court. He had no authority to reverse Roe as an appellate court judge, but if confirmed as a Supreme Court justice he will have that constitutional authority.”
Excuse me. To what was his oath of office? What is to the Constitution or to the SCOTUS' decisions? If the Consitution only means what SCOTUS says it means, why do we need a written Constition? (to quote Sobran).