Until Roberts betrayed that trust. He has been critical of him since.
Justice Roberts - Cruz going to pick more like this?
Roe Settled as Court Precedent: Roberts stated that the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion was “settled as a precedent.”3 At the Senate confirmation hearing, Roberts responding to Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spectator said of Roe, “It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes.“4 Roberts reasoned “I think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overturn precedent....It is not enough that you may think that a prior decision [like Roe v Wade] was wrongly decided.”5 Roberts, however, in 2010, said that precedent could be overturned: “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. Stare decisis is not an end in itself.â€6 Whether Roe was decided correctly based on Roberts’ views on how the Constitution should be interpreted and whether the unborn have a God-given right to life, however, are two very different things.
Believes State Can Create a Right to Assisted Suicide: In an interview in 1997 with the PBS news program, “The News Hour with Jim Lehrer,” commenting on a Supreme Court decision on assisted suicide, Roberts said that a right to assisted suicide could be created by the people through the legislature. “The right that was protected in the assisted-suicide case was the right of the people through their state legislatures to articulate their own views on the policies that should apply in those cases of terminating life, and not to have the court interfering in those policy decisions,” Roberts explained. “That’s an important right.” 7 States have no right to trump God’s enduring command, Do not kill the innocent. And when applying that comment to abortion, it becomes obvious that Roberts, like Scalia, believes the states can create a right to an abortion and that the unborn do not have a God-given or Constitutional right to life.
Abortionists may use “less shocking” Methods to Kill Unborn: In 2007, chief justice Roberts, agreed with the majority in Gonzales v. Carhart, a ruling that upheld Nebraska’s ban on a partial-birth procedure but legally defined other ways for abortionists to perform late-term abortions. Roberts concurred with the opinion written by fellow justice, Anthony Kennedy, that said in page 30 of the ruling: “The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand.” 8 According to the ruling, one praised by most pro-life organizations, killing unborn children, even viable, fully-formed ones, isn’t wrong, only the method of killing them is wrong. The ruling goes on to give abortionists advice on how to kill children more humanely so they won’t violate the law. It allows abortionists to to deliver a late-term baby all the way up to the navel and then kill him. The ruling then builds upon the late-term abortion procedure called dilation and evacuation, which it repeatedly upÂholds as remaining legal, stating (p. 21) that “D&E will often involve a physician pulling a ‘substantial portion’ of a still living fetus, say, an arm or leg, into the [birth canal] prior to the death of the fetus.” Then, the Roberts majority ruled that (p. 22) “the removal of a small portion [’say, an arm or leg’] of the fetus is not prohibited” and that’s after the baby is pulled outside the mother as far as to his bellybutton (p. 22).9 Roberts and the majority go on in the ruling to advice abortionists to conceal the details of how a child is to be killed from the woman undergoing the prodedure (p. 29): “some doctors may prefer not to disclose precise details of the means that will be used... Any number of patients facing imminent surgical procedures would prefer not to hear all details, lest the usual anxiety... become the more intense. This is likely the case with the abortion procedures here in issue.”10As a result of the Gonzales v. Carhart ruling, the Roberts-led court could be considered the most hostile yet to a right to life for the unborn.
See the ARTL documentation at AmericanRTL.org/PBA-fiasco