Posted on 09/11/2005 5:26:49 PM PDT by wagglebee
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday he will not ask Supreme Court nominee John Roberts whether he would vote to overturn the landmark decision that legalized abortion.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., did say he planned to ask Roberts, the president’s pick to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, whether there is a right to privacy in the Constitution. Roberts’ confirmation hearings before the committee were to begin Monday.
Specter said he was uncertain whether Roberts would favor overturning the Roe v. Wade decision from 1973 that established a right to abortion. Specter supports a woman’s right to choose to end her pregnancy.
"I think it is inappropriate to ask him head-on if he’s going to overturn Roe, but I believe that there are many issues close to the issue, like his respect for precedent,” Specter told NBC’s "Meet the Press.”
"We’ll get a better idea of his views, but I think at the end of the hearings he’s not going to take a definitive stand on that question,” the senator said.
He said people are not wrong to want to know Roberts’ views on abortion, "but a judge ought not to have to make commitments in advance as to how he’s going to decide cases or (if) it impinges on his judicial independence.”
Asking whether cases such as Roe or Bush v. Gore, which cleared the way for George W. Bush’s election victory in 2000, were decided properly would be too close to asking whether Roberts would vote to overrule a case, Specter said. Such questions "ask a little too much,” the senator said.
But Specter said asking Roberts, now an appeals court judge, whether the high court correctly found a right to privacy in the Constitution when rationalizing its abortion decision would be fair "and I intend to ask it.”
Specter said he plans to delve into matters such as the court’s powers and how they relate to Congress’ authority.
"I believe Republicans as well as Democrats have an obligation to find out about Judge Roberts’ jurisprudence. There ought not to be a political tilt,” he said.
Critical of court rulings that question the reasoning of Congress, Specter said he will ask Roberts what he thinks of those issues.
Specter said he thinks Bush should choose a woman to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the court’s first female justice. The only other woman to serve on the high court is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Bush had nominated Roberts to replace O’Connor, then picked Roberts to replace Rehnquist. The president has yet to name someone to succeed O’Connor.
"I think that we ought to have more women on the court. Two is a bare minimum. We really ought to have more,” Specter said.
"I don’t believe in a quota system. And it may be that at this particular time President Bush would like to have someone other than a woman, and I don’t think his hands ought to be tied,” he said.
Specter said he thought it was "a little too soon” for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to be nominated.
"He’s an able fellow, but we just went through a tough confirmation hearing, and my sense is that the national interest would be best served if he stayed in that job right now,” Specter said.
Some in the Republican Party have questioned Gonzales’ conservative credentials. He has been criticized by many liberals for decisions he has made as attorney general and for his role in administration policies while White House counsel.
Remember whe Bill Frist flip-flopped on stem cell research? He came out to announce it together with Snarlen Arlen.... did it seem at all like a deal was perhaps made about the nuclear option, or was it just my reaction.
Has anyone considered the ethical implications of asking a future member of the Court how he would rule on a hypothetical? Aren't they supposed to be impartial and decide based on the facts of the case?
"Of course Specter will give the 'Rats every possible opportunity to "Bork" Roberts."
Good point. Chuckie the Prince of Infant Sacrifice Schumer will surely ask, drooling at the prospect. "Where's the sacrificial dagger? Where? Where? I don't see any blood! Your arms have no stains."
Well isn't that big of Specter. I can't stand that man. GET OUT OF OUR PARTY!!!!
Yes, even Ted Kennedy agrees with you regarding Ginsburg's nomination...oops, now that it is Roberts Teddy boy needs to change his opinion...
So typical of "Spectre," talking out of both sides of his mouth. "Two is a bare minimum ... I don't believe in quotas."
John Roberts had an abortion?
it's amazing kennedy can judge anybody after mary jo....i wish some one would ask him about that on t.v.!!
As soon as Bush nominates a pro-life judge to replace one of the pro-aborts, though, Specter will go into full out BORK mode. Can't have anything that would move the court closer to overturn his precious "woman's right to choose"
Yeah, though I'm not quite sure I understand the logic. Would it be unethical to ask a baseball umpire how he would likely call various borderline pitches? To be sure, his opinion of how he'd call a pitch seeing a videotape or simulation does not guarantee how he would call the pitch in reality, and should not be binding, but it's still a reasonable thing to want to know.
Indeed, if having expressed opinions about cases similar to one that's being heard were sufficient to disqualify a judge, then shouldn't any Supreme Court judge who was on the Court when a case was decided be forbidden from hearing similar cases? After all, they're likely more biased than someone who's merely answering interview questions.
Apples and oranges. The umpire will not have to recuse himself and defer to the third base umpire to decide whether the pitch was a ball or a strike.
An umpire can tell you where his strike zone is so that it can be inferred that anything within that zone will be a strike. He should not be nit picked about "When is a ball a strike?" or "If the pitch hit the backstop, would that be a ball or a strike?"
ping
the issue with Roe is not whether abortion should be "legal" or not - its whether the states should decide that through their legislatures.
"whether there is a right to privacy in the Constitution. "
Uh, Arlan? It is not there. The founders very carefully worded the document. They are plain in what they say.
It is not there.
Things are not that simple in practice, though. Knees to shoulders in neutral posture may be the proper height range, but judging where that would be on a particular batter is going to be somewhat subjective depending upon the batter's build and manner.
Besides, I return to my earlier point: suppose Roberts were to say that he saw nothing in the Constitution that would support Roe v. Wade. How would that make him any more "biased" on the abortion issue than the judges who actually decided that case?
Note that Robert's statement about not having seen anything in the Constitution would not compel him to reach a particular result, if someone were to argue before him that there was something in the Constitution he hadn't noticed. I'd say Roberts would be much more able to 'change his mind' that way (though I'd hope he wouldn't) than any of the majority justices who decided Roe v. Wade would be able to change it the other.
"Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., did say he planned to ask Roberts, the president’s pick to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, whether there is a right to privacy in the Constitution."
Sly devil, isn't he? Roberts can still refuse to answer.
Roberts should ask Specter about being a dem in a pub suit.
If there is a "right to privacy" in the Constitution, how come the IRS doesn't follow it?
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.