Posted on 09/13/2005 7:51:01 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling on abortion was "settled as a precedent of the court" as he was immediately pressed to address the divisive issue on the second day of his confirmation hearings.
"It's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis," the concept that long-settled decisions should be given extra weight, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Roberts dismissed any suggestion that his Catholic faith would influence his decisions if he was confirmed to be the nation's 17th chief justice. The Roman Catholic Church strongly opposes abortion.
Questioned about rights of privacy, the appellate judge cited various amendments of the Constitution that he said protect those rights, and said, "I do think the right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways."
Roberts noted that the Supreme Court itself upheld the basics of Roe v. Wade in a 1992 case, Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Dred Scott was a SCOTUS decision.
Plessy v Ferguson was a SCOTUS decision.
The Court can be wrong. Bad decisions by the Court ought to be overturned. The Liberals would be the first to agree with that (they like Brown v Bd of Education a lot better than Plessy).
Roberts supports stare decisis, as he should. But he is not bound by past decisions (and he knows it).
If Roe vs Wade is "settled" then that word has absolutely no meaning. It is the most controversial SCOTUS decision that's still standing, and not merely because a lot of people don't like the outcome. There's serious disagreement, even among pro-abortion liberals, about the legal validity of that opinion. It's anything but "settled".
The decision to permit the wholesale slaughter of 45 million unborn children is entitled to "respect" because of legal tradition/precedent? This is a disgusting statement!
Roberts dismissed any suggestion that his Catholic faith would influence his decisions if he was confirmed to be the nation's 17th chief justice. The Roman Catholic Church strongly opposes abortion.
This statement is even more appalling since Catholics believe that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth" -- the Church that Christ founded. Jesus warned us that "whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father."
Catholic teaching must enform every aspect of a Catholic's intellectual life. This should not be problematic for non-Catholics, since Catholic teaching regarding the political order follows the natural law, which is knowable to all people. Catholics are obligated not to impose particularly Catholic doctrines on non-Catholics.
Roberts is either woefully ignorant of Catholic teaching or a coward. Neither characteristic testifies to good judgement or character.
Give me a break. What makes Bush a liberal?
This does not look good.
There is also a gray area here, in that, theologically speaking, it could be argued that this panel is not "entitled to the truth" regarding Roberts' pos. on abortion. Like having a Nazi show up on your doorstep and asking for the Jews in your attic during WWII. In that case, the Nazi soldier would not be entitled to the truth, which would render unsinful the subsequent lie that "there are no Jews in my attack".
That said, it gets a little dicey because he took an oath to testify truthfully. Does the unentitlement to truth trump the oath? If the Nazi pulled out a Bible and told you to take an oath before God that you're not hiding Jews, is the oath immediately null and void under duress?
I'm looking for a silver lining, I admit. But there is a case to be made where there is an absence of justice, certain parties are not entitled to the truth...
Based on today's hearings, there's lots of wiggle room. He said that stare decisis is less important in deciding cases involving constitutional rights than it is in deciding cases involving statutory interpretation. That's because the only ways that an incorrect Supreme Court decisions on the Constitution can be corrected are (a) a subsequent opinion by the Supreme Court or (b) a consitutional amendment. On the other hand, an incorrect Supreme Court decision on a federal or state constitution can be corrected by a subsequent statute or statutory amendment as well as by a subsequent opinion.
Don't look for Roberts to overturn Roe vs. Wade. I am beginning to wonder if Roberts is a conservative or whether he is a moderate leaning liberal???
None of which says he wouldn't vote to overturn it. I pray he does.
This is what conservatives get for allowing the Republicans to play Russian roulette with judicial nominees. Until we demand Scalia-like originalists and hold the Republicans accountable if they don't appoint such justices, the court is going to remain the same.
Compare that to Clinton and the Democrats, which didn't once fail to appoint and confirm a sure thing.
Yes, let's hope Roberts is lying and that we haven't been given yet another Souter, O'Connor or Kennedy.
It might be a good idea to demand Republicans keep their promises and nominated a verifiable orginalist in the future and hold them accountable if they don't at the ballot box.
How many times are conservatives in general going to allow this to happen without holding the Republican party accountable?
With a Republican President in the White House and 55 Republican Senators, we shouldn't have to wonder if a nominee, in this case one replacing an originalist that was opposed to Roe, is conservative or not.
It's outrageous that conservatives as a group could be stupid enough to let the Republicans get away with failing to appoint originalists opposed to Roe to the court.
It's not a good sign when our best hope is that the nominee dishonestly answers questions in a formal hearing.
Either way, he is the wrong choice for the Supreme Court.
That is a highly exteme situation. People have an obligation to protect their neighbors from immediate danger to their lives. Roberts does not have the obligation or even an entitlement to be Chief Justice. Lying is an unacceptable method of getting there - period.
WGST radio news in Atlanta announced immediately after this that Roberts had promised to uphold Roe.
I'd rather he rely on the Constitution. If he relies on his personal conscience to formulate judicial decisions, he's no different than a liberal judicial activist.
Did they actually quote him directly, or was the announcer saying it in his own words?
The newscaster summed up his testimony that way.
Article Six of the U.S. Constitution specifically states that, '...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust'".
So the Democrats have created a scenario where the constitution is being violated, and Roberts has to play into their hands?
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.