Posted on 09/13/2005 5:01:31 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
Roberts doesn't seem to embrace two prongs of the Torie matrix when applying stare decisis, whether of not the decision shocks the conscience, and whether or not it has caused controversy, and diviseness, and disruptive rather than cohesive to the public square. Granted, I can understand why he wouldn't go there, unless pressed. The other two, regarding whether it would shock the system, and preexisting arrangements, and whether it is a constitutional issue, he did embraced.
Did you hear it now?
Roberts: The Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights is "settled as a precedent of the court,"
Right. It was the one red herring for me with Roberts, but after today, I am completely at ease with it. He is open to it's reversal and I am hopeful that if we are fortunate enough to get another conservative to replace O'Connor, that we just may see the end of the murder of babies.
Specter is a puke, so I'm hearing about what I'd expect from him.
For now. He stated that it does not mean that it could not be reversed.
I agree that Roe is settled precedent as the law of the land [because] the court in Casey upheld Roe, rather than choosing to revisit the holding.
I think the comment does indeed send a signal, and reduces the odds that Roberts will vote to reverse Roe, absent new "facts."
Just my reading of the tea leaves.
Yes, thanks.
I should add that to my ears, settled precedent as opposed to precedent means something different. Otherwise the adjective "settled" is mere surplusage, meaning nothing. Lawyers don't like surplusage.
I understand what he said. They asked for a quote & I gave it to them.
During the discourse with Senator Hatch, didn't Roberts also agree that Casey modified Roe in such as way as to alter the original holding? That included dumping the trimester nonsense and using "liberty" as the rationale for the ruling, rather than privacy. To me, that sounded as if Roberts was agreeing with Hatch that Casey itself proved that Roe isn't sacrosanct. And, of course, it shouldn't be, as it's a hideously unconstitutional ruling.
What does "revisit the holding" mean?
sorry, wasn't trying to insult or offend you.
Here is what John Roberts said with regard to international law answering a question from Senator Kyl. Roberts was quite straightforward in criticising prctice of using foreign law to interpret US Constitution. He said that it opens a door for judicial activism by judges with certain legal agenda as "one can always find friends in the crowd" i.e. you can always find a legal system somewhere in the world that supports your point of view. Plus using international law as some kind of precedent makes interpreting US Constitution subject to decision of foreign politicians (who write these laws) who were not elected by US citizens nor answer to them.
In my opinion that was actually one of the more important statements during todays hearings.
I can not understand Chris Matthews. He must have thought his outrageous performance would draw an audience. It has not.
The most important thing to remember in broadcasting is broadcasting ended many careers of the very loud singers. Broadcasting brought in the crooners.. Bing Crosby was the first. He understood that both Radio and TV performers were guests in people's cars and homes. One do not get in someone's car or walk in someone's house and belt out songs at the top of your lungs or be loud and rude. Such behavior will not be allowed in the audience's homes again.
There are just two factors to a talk show on radio or TV... The show must provide information lots of viewers want and/or it must entertain. Limbaugh quite correctly mixes the two.. entertainment and or wanted information is what is required to get and hold an audience. That is what Rush provides.
Mathews just attacked Conservatives .. thinking that would draw an audience. That is a certain prescription of lousy ratings.
There is a problem with any show designed to appeal to the left. Most rank and file Democrats see themselves as having little power. They expect the Democratic party to make government take care of their needs. Since they see themselves as having little power, they have no interest in following what government does. They delegate control of government and much of their lives to the leaders of the Democratic party. That is why liberal talk radio can't get an audience.
The left believes that since they get nearly as many votes nationwide as conservatives, that they should be able to draw an audience to radio and TV talk as big as the Conservative shows. But they cannot. Their potential audience has delegated control of their future to the Democratic party. Men who delegate choice of their clothing to their wives do not spend time in mens clothing stores. Rank and file Democrats do not follow anything except sensational news. If it bleeds it leads. And if it does not bleed they don't watch it. But that does not mean loud talk and rude show hosts can hold an audience. Democrats crave the sensational.. but that does not mean you can shout it at them.
The portion of the Democratic party that does not delegate control will not be found watching news talk shows... They only want to host them.
Thus any reasonably intelligent host who hopes to garner an audience has to be either right wing or neutral.
If I were running MSNBC I would put completely neutral hosts on the air, and let them moderate debates between leaders of the left and right. I don't mean shouting matches... I mean true debates with lots of information on subject matter that effects ordinary people. The host duties would consist of keeping debaters honest. And that means hosts would have to be unbiased moderators. The audience would be predominately conservative, but having good conservative speakers debate good liberal speakers would draw an audience.
Conservatives would have to defend their positions. They could not just make an unchallenged case. It would be a contest where liberals could not get away with telling lies....A network run using that system would draw an audience.
Participants who had a sense of humor, along with serious debate, would make the ratings really good.
I really think that many of the people running NBC and its cable channels, and CNN and its cable channels. know very little about the people that make up a potential audience. The cable channel programmers know even less about how to attract viewers.
Union offices had basements filled with boxes with thousands of copies of Jim Wright's book, never to be distributed or read. They bought those at inflated prices far beyond production cost and the deal between the publisher and Fort Worthless Jim included terms by which the "author" received unusually high royalties for each book sold.
Side note: Newt Gingrich was the Congressman who dug into this issue and doggedly went after Wright, forcing the resignation. Possibly the key reason the Dems hate Newt so much.
I didn't hear that exchange, but if you remember it correctly, it seems that Casey is more vulnerable than Roe, in Roberts' mind. It certainly should be.
Visit the issue anew, and make a decision anew, maybe to uphold the prior decision, maybe to reverse it, rather than just citing it, I would suspect. The refusal to revisit means it is settled, in Roberts parlance. Yes my guess.
"Just my guess"
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.