Remaining cautiously optimistic...
Good response by Roberts, because he is really not saying anything or casting the future of R vs. W at all.
Well thought out response -- choke on that LIBS.
I do not like the sound of his statement. I see little wiggle room in his remarks.
True. He will be influenced by his own conscience (formed with the help of the Catholic Church, of course).
Just because Roberts has an (R) after his name means nothing when the man assumes the position of jurist. Liberal judges on the SCOTUS nominated by Republican Presidents include names such as Earl Warren, John Paul Stevens, and as recent as recent as Sandra Day O'Connor who was departing from the US Constitution in her most recent decisions.
No doubt this is why the liberals in both parties attacked Judge Bork with such venom. They can't have a purist when they are dismantling the constitution from the bench.
This is a proper response.
There are only a few decisions that nominees would say were "wrongly decided." Almost all the time that prior decisions are effectively overturned it is through one or more qualifications of the prior decision.
Was Roe v Wade wrong decided, like Dred Scott?
Even Plessy v. Ferguson wasn't totally wrong ... there are times when you can have separate AND equal, as in women's bathrooms at sports facilities.
There's no way of knowing at this point. I think that any anti-abortion nominee will deceive as necessary to get past the abortion questions, since the Democrats will refuse to approve anybody that fails their abortion-on-demand litmus test. That's just the hand we've been dealt.
The only stare decisis the USSC needs is the Constitution. Else you end up with activist judges using international law to re-write the meaning of a Law.
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.
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.
WGST radio news in Atlanta announced immediately after this that Roberts had promised to uphold Roe.
What a dumb/politically correct answer, although one he probably felt that he had to give. His Catholic faith should influence every moment of his life on earth, including each and every decision he makes.
-PJ
plessy vs fergesun and dredscott were both precident.
Conservatives fooled again.
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.