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 ...
This will drive libs apoplectic.
I think Stevens is going down this summer. Man’s 89 years old. Unless he wants to die at the bench, and many of them do, he’s got to retire sometime.
It does suggest that although Bush wasn’t perfect, he wasn’t the dunce he is made out to be either.
It IS worse than the holocaust. The only atrocities it compares to is Stalin’s reign of terror and Mao’s cultural revolution.
I could possibly see Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito voting to restore regulation of abortion to the states (i.e. refuting it as anything the federal government is empowered to regulate). That would not eliminate abortion, you can bet Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, etc would put an abortion law on the books within a month even if Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, etc might potentially ban it. But it would make it something you could debate within your community again, so that would be something.
The thing is, who is the 5th vote? Forget about Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Stevens, and Breyer. Kennedy might be the only possibility, though he seems to have come down on the side of placing precedent on a pedestal higher than the constitution itself on this issue.
Which is the way the Constitution reads. Anything else, is illegal.
Agreed. But still pray for changed hearts before changed laws...
Everytime I hear libs or those ignorant of our true history refer to our Founders strictly as 'slavemasters', I raise this point on abortion and usually the conversation goes silent.
It would make all the sense in the world, wouldn't it? But I remember listening to a court watcher say that he has a big ego and badly wants to be the oldest SCJ in history (maybe it was longest serving, I don't remember). This watcher really thinks he's going to hang on another three years.
He also thought Ginz would too, personally, I don't know about her health.
Roe v. Wade, minority set-assides, and ALL States' Rights rulings that have eroded the Constitutions' intent and meaning ALL need to be re-visited, and found Un-Constitutional, and correctly put us back on course, if it's not too late already.
If SCOTUS rules that life begins at conception, thre’s not a whole lot that the states can do.
“a gift that will keep on giving for conservatives for decades”
As long as someone doesn’t crank up the power on their seizure machine..
I doublt that it will be illegal by Federal law since the current fight is over whether the Federal government can make law allowing or disallowing abortion. Doing away with Rowe will send the decisions back to the states where it belongs under the constitution which does not address it in any way, shape or form.
If a State wanted to make abortion legal, it would at least be somewhat Constitutional. Then the voters of that State could deal with the sanctity of life and their own politicians.
Yes. As it should have been from the get go.
How do you like Roberts now, Ann Coulter?
They all believed Ted Kennedy when he said that overturning Roe v. Wade would lead to women being subjected to back-alley abortions.
Oh yes, I think it would. 10th amendment and all that. The thing is, we'd get a real patchwork quilt of abortion laws. In New York, abortion would probably be legal into the 3rd trimester, in Virginia maybe it would be legal in cases of rape or incest. In Texas maybe it would be illegal everywhere. So then people would go across state lines and eventually the Supremos would declare it was a matter of interstate commerce and regulate it anyway. A federally protected right to abortion is a sacred cow to liberals, they will not let it go.
That’s where it belongs...states...
10-4. I used to get grief as well but went ot the HTML help pages and learned about the /sarc switch although it is not a real command. Just put that at the end of your sarcastic comments and it eliminates the need for additional qualifiers.
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.