To: advance_copy
this worries me. Yahoo reported that he stated in his appellate confirmation that:
"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
513 posted on
07/19/2005 5:39:11 PM PDT by
Bubbatuck
(Demonrats: The End is Near!)
To: Bubbatuck
"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." This is what an Appellant judge should do -- follow the law. A USSC justice, on the other hand, gets to make the final guess.
555 posted on
07/19/2005 5:44:20 PM PDT by
Smedley
(I'm better than dirt. Well, most kinds of dirt. I mean not that fancy store bought dirt.)
To: Bubbatuck
this worries me. Yahoo reported that he stated in his appellate confirmation that:
"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." Not to worry, He didn't say he agreed with the decision. Here he was speaking as an Appellate judge who is expected to apply the law as determined by the USSC. However, as a SC justice he could join a majority, if one emerged and the right case presented, to overthrow Roe.
615 posted on
07/19/2005 5:52:48 PM PDT by
NilesJo
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson