Posted on 08/15/2005 9:25:28 PM PDT by Mike10542
Bench Memos ALL EYES ON THE COURTS
Roberts’s White House Counsel Records--Abortion [Edward Whelan 08/15 05:13 PM] Two items are noteworthy (in addition to Roberts’s unequivocal condemnation of bombings and other acts of violence against abortion clinics):
1. In October 1985 Roberts was asked to review a proposed telegram to be sent to a memorial service to be held in Los Angeles for some 16,500 aborted fetuses that had been discovered at a medical laboratory in 1982. The draft telegram, quoting Lincoln’s words at Gettysburg, stated that “just as the terrible toll of Gettysburg can be traced to a tragic decision of a divided Supreme Court, so also can the deaths we mourn.” It stated that Roe “made void all our laws protecting the lives of infants developing in their mothers’ wombs” and noted that “[o]nce again [as in Dred Scott] a whole category of human beings had been ruled outside the protection of the law by a court ruling which clashed with our deepest moral convictions.” The draft prayed that God would “speed the day when the right to life of every human being . . . is honored and protected by our laws and our public policy.”
Roberts wrote that he had “only one small objection” to the text of the draft telegram — namely, that it would be more accurate to say that Roe voided “many of our laws” rather than “all our laws.” He added that, in accord with Reagan’s position on abortion, a “memorial service would seem an entirely appropriate means of calling attention to the abortion tragedy.”
2. In June 1985 Roberts was asked to review talking points that had been drafted for President Reagan for a telephone call to an anti-abortion rally in Los Angeles. Approving the talking points, Roberts noted that they “call for reversing ‘the tragedy of Roe v. Wade,’ ” “not[e] advances in medical technology that permit increased care for the unborn, and applaud[] those who are providing compassionate alternatives to abortion.”
Roberts is going to be a good judge. I'm sure of it.
He is ideologically conservative, but concerned with the ethics involved in his role as a judge on our courts. And he does not believe that it is ethical to rule on cases based on ideology, rather than to rule based on the laws of the land.
I agree. I think with Roberts, Bush picked the perfect candidate. Yeah, he could have nominated a Luttig or Jones and made even the naysayers on here happy, but in picking Roberts he picked someone who really can't be attacked. Yeah, some may say that because Democrats will let him through, it means he is another Souter. I have a different theory. Bush has phrased the debate so well that in picking someone who advocated judicial restraint and following the law and that he stressed these key terms throughout his career, Democrats would look not only stupid, but mentally deficient (well, they are technically both) in oppsoing him. Yeah, of course the normal 25-30 crazies will vote against him anyways because they don't care how they look to the public. But there are (I hate to admit it), 5-10 Democratic Senators who have enough sense to vote for this guy.
I don't have the comment he made about bad precedent, but I think he did mention that it would be subject to be overturned if it was that bad. As a judge, you have to honor stare decisis to great deal and all jduges will say that, But that still does not prevent them from overturning bad precedent.
I believe there is a chance that Robert's will help over turn Roe v Wade one day. Partial birth abortions are sick and I believe there is a way we can overturn Roe v Wade and regulate abortions with common sense.
You should read this:
Media continue to mis-cite Roberts's "settled law" comment to suggest his views on Roe v. Wade
In their coverage of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr., numerous media outlets have continued to baselessly suggest that Roberts's 2003 pledge to "fully and faithfully apply" Roe v. Wade as the "settled law of the land" signals that he would vote to uphold the ruling if confirmed to the Supreme Court. In fact, Roberts's description of Roe as "settled law" in the context of an appellate court nomination indicates nothing about either his personal views on abortion, or whether he would vote to uphold Roe if confirmed to the high court. As an appellate judge, Roberts must uphold the law and adhere to Supreme Court precedent or face the threat of reversal; his description of Roe as "settled law" merely amounted to a pledge to do his job. But as a Supreme Court justice, Roberts would be free to reconsider and overturn prior Supreme Court rulings, including Roe.
Source: http://mediamatters.org/items/200507210004
I believe that he is going to make: 1. An excellent Supreme Court Judge, then: 2. Our next Chief Justice.
I believe that he is going to make: 1. An excellent Supreme Court Judge, then: 2. Our next Chief Justice.
I think you are right, and I will not be surprised to see Justice Roberts writing the opinions in these cases. He respects the right of the people through their state legislatures to set boundaries for abortion, even if this places them in "conflict" with Roe v. Wade. He will not rely on Justice O'Connor's ridiculous "undue burden" test which has no basis in the Constitution. He will opine that states do have a legitimate interest in preserving potential life and protecting it from cruel and barbaric procedures such as partial-birth abortion, and a legitimate interest in preserving the primacy of parents in deciding on medical procedures for minor children. It is going to be up to us to get our state legislatures to enact more restrictive laws. If we can't, then we need to shut up and not expect five judges to outlaw abortion.
Except when it comes to gay marriage, then he'll preside over Adam and Steve's wedding. Or his and Souter's...
If a public law is passed by the legislature and signed by the executive, and if Roberts was a Justice of the Peace, or otherwise legally empowered public official to administer the vows, I would fully expect him to do his job.
My issue won't be with him, but with the legislature and the executive, and ultimately with the people who voted for the legislation.
Do you propose that a conservative legislate as actively from the bench as any liberal?
Actually, the people have spoken loudly in rejection of gay marriage. It's the judges who are ushering it in. Roberts seems to lean heavily in that direction, hence my concern. I'm not as sure as you he won't legislate crap like that from the bench.
I don't think you have any evidence that Roberts is in favor of gay marriages. His prior work when he assisted and advised a lawyer arguing a case for a gay couple before the Supreme Court does not indicate his bias either way. As a lawyer, his legal opinion is devoid of his personal values.
Also I know that the people are generally against gay marriage. I was just pointing out that if the government passed laws enabling gay marriage, a conservative judge would have to honor that law.
I think that a conservative judge would oppose the attempts to legislate from the bench of other judges, and on the Supreme Court, Roberts would uphold the law. It would be up to us, the voters, to ensure that the laws are representative of us, and specific enough to prevent liberal interpretations to stand.
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.