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 ...
And the court respected those descions prior to overturning them.
Then that would pretty much make it impossible for a practicing Catholic to hold any political office.
The sin of abortion is one of the few that are considered intrinsically evil by our church, however, we don't own the copyright to the pro-life movement, either. One need not be Catholic to oppose abortion, so opposing abortion doesn't have to imply an overriding loyalty to Rome.
Asking him if his religious views will inform his decisions does not violate Article VI. In fact, the whole reason for Article VI was that it was assumed that particular sectarian views should not affect how an officer does his job. It was for that reason that they felt that discrimination on that basis was unjustifiable.
Indeed.
There is no constitutional right to murder children.
None.
When someone says "we must consider the precedent of Roe v. Wade," I must assume he believes there may very well be a constitutional right to murder children.
Unacceptable.
It is not a matter of legal parsing. It is his choice of words and how he expresses them.
When somebody gives that much backing to the Right to Privacy and Stare Decesis on the matter of abortion, it means something.
It means he is a long way from overturning anything. The conservative movement goes around pretending to have accomplished a lot half of the time, and pretending to be blocked by Roe the other half.
But choosing not to pass a constitutional version of the Partial Birth Ban and choosing not to pursue 3rd trimester bans across the country (both explicitly allowed by Roe) leaves the movement virtually naked in the courts.
What evidence do you have that this country is ready to overturn such a firmly established precedent as Roe?
Your own personal beliefs? Some imaginary history perhaps? An imaginary biblical injunction?
Faith in God, I guess. Just don't make the mistake of expecting an activist conservative judge to do what your Representatives are afraid to do.
Here you are bearing false witness, while being critical of this man's level of commitment to Christ.
Kind of ironic.
Here's what's wrong with it. We could go with what you're saying and take it at face value, and conclude that he's "just stating a fact". But if that's the case, then he's stating a fact that literally everyone in the Senate chamber already knows, including the 12-year-old girls who open the doors for the Senators to walk through. In other words, he's not answering the question at all, despite the fact that he's pretending to.
It's a pretty safe bet that the question he'd been asked was not, "Is Roe vs Wade settled precedent and entitled to respect?" It was something more along the line of whether he intended to uphold it. Two choices about his answer. Either: a) He was saying nothing at all, or b) If he was saying at all beyond nothing, then he was saying that it was likely that he would uphold it.
Bingo, that is how this game is played. Right now, it is just a bunch of Senators trying to cover their butts so they look good to all their special interest groups.
Roberts said he never turned down a request for pro bono work while in private practice, including a case on gay rights. "I think it's right that if there had been something morally objectionable, I suppose I would have."
Precedent is always respected. That doesn't mean that it is always the deciding factor of a succeeding case. There are different factors, respected all, of which precedent is one. Your statements do nothing to help in this critical period.
Really? I would be genuinely interested in knowing when the President went beyond the precepts of Liberal Christianity (prayer, faith, good works, etc.) and Conservative Politics (faith-based initiatives, supporting laws that don't get passed, saying the right talking points) and demanded Personal Accountability from anyone in his circle.
My examples are Jenna and Barbara, Ken Lay, and Karl Rove. Who are yours?
Which isn't to say that he's a bad guy. I just don't think his personal beliefs match up well with his political ones. I think he is (like all politicians) something of an opportunist. I think this because I have never met a Conservative Christian who was so loose in this regard, but I would be happy to see you prove me wrong.
And the court respected those descions prior to overturning them.
Dred Scott was never overturned by any subsequent decision of the supreme court. It was superseded by the 14th amendment.
Plessy, contrary to popular misconception, was not overturned by Brown vs Board of Education. If you read the opinion in Brown, you'll see that it went through contortions to try to explain why Plessy wasn't controlling in that instance. Subsequent to that, Plessy was largely if not entirely superseded by federal civil rights legislation.
A: "It's settled law."
How would any normal person interpret such an exchange?
For my part, I conclude that at the very least he's a Clintonian weasel-worder. Not something I'd want in a Chief Justice.
Note that he stated that the court precedent gave the opinion weight, but did NOT address the constitutional basis for the precedent. Just my $.02.
Yes.....the decisions need to be based on actual Constitutional interpretation, not personal opinion, be it liberal or conservative. Otherwise, to paraphrase Justice Scalia, we are ruled by the opinion of 9 lawyers....and why is their opinion to be held supreme if it is based only on personal belief rather than the Constitution?
Though you have just demonstrated that you're not (by being untruthful and judgmental about something you have no knowledge of), I guess we can assume from your post that every person with whom you are closely associated - each friend, business associate, and family member - is walking in perfect lockstep with Christ.
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance.”
Don't cry to me, pansy. Maybe you haven't been paying attention to politics for the last 20 years.
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.