[GarySpFc]

I do not like the sound of his statement. I see little wiggle room in his remarks.

[untrained skeptic]

There's lots of wiggle room. Long standing precedents are given more weight when deciding cases to preserve consistency in our legal system.

That's not saying that bad decisions should not be overturned, just that they should not be overturned capriciously.

The murder of unborn children should have enough weight to overwhelm objections to privacy and long standing precedence.

[papertyger]

I do not like the sound of his statement. I see little wiggle room in his remarks.

I understand and agree completely. However, and I speak only for myself, I find no substantive moral and ethical difference between enduring what the democrats have made of the confirmation process, and negotiating with a hostage taker. I.e., say whatever you must to take away their means of leverage, and get them into custody.

It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I could see a nominee dismissing anything said during confirmation as pointedly as the democrats ignored the unprecedented boycott by the entire Supreme Court of Bill Clinton's State of the Union Address.

[Piranha]

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.

[Always Right]

I do not like the sound of his statement. I see little wiggle room in his remarks.

Why? All he is saying is that previoius decisions should be given consideration. He is not saying they are bound by them.