Michael Steele specifically stated that in regard to Roe v. Wade, rather than overturn Roe v. Wade, he said that Supreme Court should "FOLLOW STARE DECISIS". That means that they should not ignore the doctrine (as is the prerogative of the Supreme Court BTW) but that they should follow it, which means that they should treat it as settled law and not disturb it.
Now read what you posted:
“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command,”[/b] [William H. Rehnquist] said in a 1991 opinion that included, in a page and a half of small type, a list of 33 precedents that the court had overturned in the previous 20 years.
Right.
The Supreme Court can FOLLOW stare decisis (and not disturb settled law) or they can IGNORE stare decisis, and overturn settled law.
Got that?
Read it again.
Ok now do you have the picture?
Now read what Steele said when Russert asked him directly if Roe should be upheld (which means NOT OVERTURNED). Steele said the court should FOLLOW STARE DECISIS".
That means Steele does not believe the courts should overturn Roe v. Wade.
But I guess you know more about stare decisis than Rehnquist, Roberts and Alito.
No. The problem is that YOU don't know anything about it. And if Michael Steele thinks he is pro-life, then he doesn't know anything about it either.
And FOLLOWING stare decisis isn't some magical lock that keeps something sealed in place forever, as the definition shows, but places something on hold until such conditions in society and subsequent events make it prudent to revisit it. Odd how you neglected to discuss that point, which makes the layman's understanding moot because it shows that FOLLOWING stare decisis means one revisits such issues when conditions require--such as the states' rights issues which multiple states have pushed.
You seem to want to make stare decisis fit the definition you want it to fit in order to make the point you want to make. This is intellectually dishonest. Who would hire a lawyer who uses a legal definition that fits his prejudices as opposed to the full meaning of that definition?
Like so many who are unwilling to think beyond their own preconceptions, you don't let facts get in the way of a fun little rant. You've taken this excerpt from an interview and allowed the reporter to set the discourse, no matter what that reporter's positions and goals.
Try looking beyond a single MSM Gotcha! interview, which is spread all over the internet without much else supporting this one answer, one time, why don't ya?
Elsewhere on his campaign site, Steele makes the case that he's staunchly antiabortion: He is a strong advocate for the unborn. And has been a leader on the issue ever since his time studying to be an Augustine monk. No one should ever doubt Michael Steele's commitment to life. He has been pro-life his entire adult life. In 2006 he was endorsed for US Senate by National Right to Life and Maryland Right to Life. He ran as a staunchly pro-life candidate in a state that rarely elects pro-life candidates. The Washington Times said, "Mr. Steele is staunchly pro-life (parting with many Republicans who support abortion in cases of rape and incest) and he is a free trader... The Washington Times is pleased to endorse Michael Steele for the U.S. Senate." (October 25, 2006). Michael Steele supports preserving the pro-life platform. Michael Steele favors overturning Roe v. Wade and sending the abortion question back to the states where he hopes state legislators will vote to protect life.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/02/02/new-republican-chairman-michael-steele-flaunts-faith-credentials-to-a-wary-base.html
Does this mean he's pro-life? I don't know. Unlike you, I'm not letting Meet the Press decide that for me.
Steele explained his statements on Meet the Press during the CNS interview, where he explained that Roe v. Wade would remain the precedent until another case challenged it.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09020212.html
You claim to be a lawyer? The next time I hire one, I'll be sure to ask if he posts as P-Marlowe on FR. If he says yes, I'll bolt.