Posted on 01/25/2010 11:34:34 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Chief Justice John Roberts last week made it clear that the Supreme Court over which he presides will not hesitate to sweep away its own major constitutional rulings when doing so is necessary to defend America’s bedrock governing document.
The announcement of that guiding core principle means two very big things. First, Roberts and his fellow strict constructionists on the court are now armed and ready with a powerful rationale for overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion ruling if Justice Anthony Kennedy or a future justice becomes the fifth vote against Roe.
Secondly, successfully placing Roberts atop the high court is beginning to look like former President George W. Bush’s most important legacy – a gift that will keep on giving for conservatives for decades.
In last Thursday’s 5-to-4 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling dismantling the McCain-Feingold campaign law, Roberts joined with fellow Bush appointee Justice Samuel Alito to issue a separate concurrence “to address the important principles of judicial restraint and stare decisis implicated in this case.”
While Roberts conceded that “departures from precedent are inappropriate in the absence of a ‘special justification,’” he quickly added that “At the same time, stare decisis is neither an ‘inexorable command’… nor ‘a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ … especially in constitutional cases,” noting that “If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants.”
Instead, under the “stare decisis” judicial doctrine of respecting past rulings, “When considering whether to re-examine a prior erroneous holding, we must balance the importance of having constitutional questions decided against the importance of having them decided right.” The chief justice declared: “stare decisis is not an end in itself.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
The next thing to be re-eavaluated is the commerce clause and bust that phoney beast apart. If it were to happen, Katie bar the doors!
I agree.
John Roberts showing his true pro-life colors.
Kudos, mister CJ!
Good Lord, has a Liberal Full-Pantload Alert been issued yet? ‘Cause there are going to be some messes when they read this. :)
One day... abortion will be illegal, and all the politicians who supported it will be forever stained by the blood of those they helped kill.
__________________________________________________
True. Even legal..... all the politicians who supported it will be forever stained by the blood of those they helped kill.
If ever there was a law that should be overturned, it is Roe v. Wade. Take a stand for life and you will find a new and improved America.
I am hoping - that 0bama’s criticism of the CFR decision will push the court to respond with stronger language - incorporating the second amendment.
Exactly right. You beat me to it. That commerce clause has to be repealed.
Thou Roberts is one of the greatest SC picks of all time, he also tried to pick one of his croneys... GWB did 3 things right, Roberts, Tax Cuts and the war on Terror. Those are not small accomplishments by any means, but he could have done a lot better overall.
Not necessarily. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not make abortion illegal. It will allow each state to regulate abortion. Some states will make abortion illegal; some states will preserve the status quo.
heh..
In the world that Obama is loyal to, it's 57.
In the country that he presides as president, it's still 50.
That was the point. Then the people could vote with their feet.
Bush’s fault.
Roe v. Wade will be eventually overturned - and what a wonderful day in America’s history it will be.
I pray that day comes as soon as possible - helpless, innocent children are being murdered in this country every day.
Always!
True, but even then, I'd take abortion being legal in 15 states over it being legal in 50. Let the states that allow it bear the brunt of God's wrath, instead of it continuing to come down on us all.
I think it will depend on the grounds for which it is overturned. Note that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment distinguishes between its guidance for "citizens" and "persons." If the unborn can be successfully defined as "persons," the 14th Amendment will extend to them equal protection and the states won't have a choice...
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
We talked baseball, he asked about my kids and family...he was especially interested to hear about my son who's with the NYPD...I spoke a bit about politics (he didn't say anything then)...and I left him with with these words: "An awful lot of people like me are REALLY looking forward to the Heller decision." I then shook his hand and he got back to his suite (the suites share some common open-air areas).
Yes he could have. He spent most of his eight years hiding from the press, not defending the war, and by inferrence, not defending our troops. Almost unforgiveable.
You just stumbled on the BIGGER precedent: far bigger than Roe v. Wade and much more consequential.
Restore the 10th Amendment!
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.