Replies

"ROE VS. 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."

It sounds like we already know based on his own words.

Those were hearings for the position of appellate court. Generally, what he was saying was that he would consider Roe settled law and respect precedents and not give such cases grounds to come to the Supreme Court unless there was a legitimate cause.

Simply put, it was a correct position if he wanted to sail through. Which is what he did.

And it also gave him his stealth cover for his upcoming hearings.

There's nothing here that will prevent him from revisiting Roe as a Supreme. In fact, only SCOTUS can overturn Roe, not any lower court.

Like I said, we won't know until it's too late. Too bad Roberts isn't more like Thomas or Scalia. With Thomas especially, his writings on abortion made him very well known. The same with Bork. But those writings also were what defeated Bork and nearly sunk Thomas.

Wait and see. That's all we can really do anyway. I find his pro-bono work on the sodomy case to be far more disturbing than this statement on how he saw himself applying Roe on an appelate court.