Someone say Ito?
Posted on 10/30/2005 1:17:40 PM PST by Giant Conservative
Rehnquist had no prior experience as a judge. Thomas had a year or so on the DC Circuit. Scalia had about four years, also on the DC Circuit. Souter, on the other hand, had twelve years as a state judge, plus a few months on the First Circuit. Judicial experience is nice, but not absolutely necessary, and at least sometimes greatly overrated. Or did we change our minds about Souter being garbage?
"Judge Michael Luttig is supported by infamous RINO pundit Hugh Hewitt, which should send up a red flag right there."
Well said. If Hewitt's for him, I'd be skeptical.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=4th/981930r3pv3.html
Luttig's own words are that abortion is a "fundamental right" and that a woman has a "right to choose".
Nothing in this opinion suggests that he would overturn Roe.
Its amazing how us conservatives eat our own.
Yes, the fact is that they want to fight and they don't care whom with or what about.
They're political psycopaths.
Ultimately he believes that as an appelate justice he must be guided by Supreme Court decisions which he believes he has no chance of overturning.
The only result would be a delay in the inevitable conclusion.
However, as a Supreme Court justice he would be able at that point to overturn Roe as bad law.
These are NOT Luttig's words. He is merely repeating what the courts have said.
If you read his decision carefully you will note that he never personally supports this position.
In other parts of this decision (relating to whether he should have recused himself) he clearly states his own personal opinions along with those of the court.
BTW quotes are in parentheses.
"I understand the Supreme Court to have intended its decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), to be a decision of super-stare decisis with respect to a woman's fundamental right to choose whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy."
This is not his understanding (as implied in the original article) but the Supreme Court's decision which he believes he has no chance of changing by agreeing with the defendants.
[Luttig's] record also includes at least one case bound to please antiabortion activists. When Virginia wanted to start enforcing a ban on the procedure critics call "partial birth" abortion in 1998, state officials sought out a conservative jurist -- Luttig -- who would rule in their favor.
>>>>His ruling for the 4th Circuit allowing the law to take effect overturned a lower court and ran contrary to courts in 17 other states in which bans on the controversial late-term procedure had been challenged.
>>>>Yet Luttig ultimately bowed to higher authority. In 2000, after the Supreme Court overturned a similar Nebraska law, Luttig wrote the 4th Circuit opinion invalidating Virginia's statute on "partial birth" abortion. Citing a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that reaffirmed Roe ,Luttig wrote: "I understand the Supreme Court to have intended its decision . . . to be a decision of super-stare decisis with respect to a woman's fundamental right to choose." He added that Supreme Court precedent must be followed "faithfully."
Bush needs to just go with Scalia and give him 2 votes lol.
The issues in this case were no different than any others presented before and so he knew that any anti-Roe decision on his part would ultimately be overturned.
In a sense he did the pro-life movement a favor by not creating yet another Supreme Court ruling in favor of Roe and adding to the Supreme Court's stare-decisis support of Roe.
I guess it depends on whether you think judges decide fundamental rights or whether fundamental rights exist apart from judges decisions. It seems to me that the end part of his decision suggests he believes the latter in which case his claim that there is a fundamental right to abortion is highly problematical.
Please Lord, give us a SCOTUS judge after your own heart. Amen.
Someone say Ito?
Just goes to show you, there was a worse choice out there than Harriet Miers. ;)
Alito would be nothing more than another Kennedy. There's already one too many of his kind on the court.
Somewhat so.
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.