Skip to comments.Roberts: Precedent Important for Abortion
Posted on 09/13/2005 7:51:01 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling on abortion was "settled as a precedent of the court" as he was immediately pressed to address the divisive issue on the second day of his confirmation hearings.
"It's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis," the concept that long-settled decisions should be given extra weight, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Roberts dismissed any suggestion that his Catholic faith would influence his decisions if he was confirmed to be the nation's 17th chief justice. The Roman Catholic Church strongly opposes abortion.
Questioned about rights of privacy, the appellate judge cited various amendments of the Constitution that he said protect those rights, and said, "I do think the right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways."
Roberts noted that the Supreme Court itself upheld the basics of Roe v. Wade in a 1992 case, Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Remaining cautiously optimistic...
Good response by Roberts, because he is really not saying anything or casting the future of R vs. W at all.
Well thought out response -- choke on that LIBS.
I do not like the sound of his statement. I see little wiggle room in his remarks.
I believe he already gave the hint tothe out:
The Casey case actually does NOT completely reaffirm Roe. The 4th Amendment is a very shgaky place to try to build a case for Roe. Casey moves the battlefield in part over to the 14th Amendment, which allows for a lot more games-playing.
Nonetheless, the fact that Casey modified Roe already means that a future case can modify Roe some more. Eventually ( I hop3e not to eventually) it can be modified out of existence.
I heard him to say that although there is "precedence", that there are conditions under which "precedence" can be challenged. Very good........
In re-reading what he's said, he only refers to the Planned Parenthood as a "starting point", not the final word.
I think he would not leave the door cracked open for overturning Roe if he thought it was ironclad.
I am also cautiously optimistic...
True. He will be influenced by his own conscience (formed with the help of the Catholic Church, of course).
Roberts is brilliant. Yes, Roe vs Wade exists is all he said. (Freedom to murder another human being under the guise of freedom, privacy and "ownership" is another thing.)
Just because Roberts has an (R) after his name means nothing when the man assumes the position of jurist. Liberal judges on the SCOTUS nominated by Republican Presidents include names such as Earl Warren, John Paul Stevens, and as recent as recent as Sandra Day O'Connor who was departing from the US Constitution in her most recent decisions.
No doubt this is why the liberals in both parties attacked Judge Bork with such venom. They can't have a purist when they are dismantling the constitution from the bench.
I've heard him say that too. Roberts will not be a conservative activist. But he will be an originalist and that's what I want.
Before you launch into criticisms at least learn the facts of history. SCOTUS had nothing to do with the 3/5s (NOT 2/3s) rule. That was a device incorporated into the CONSTITUTION of the US dealing with representation.
It did not declare slaves less than human.
This is a proper response.
There are only a few decisions that nominees would say were "wrongly decided." Almost all the time that prior decisions are effectively overturned it is through one or more qualifications of the prior decision.
Was Roe v Wade wrong decided, like Dred Scott?
Even Plessy v. Ferguson wasn't totally wrong ... there are times when you can have separate AND equal, as in women's bathrooms at sports facilities.
I understand and agree completely. However, and I speak only for myself, I find no substantive moral and ethical difference between enduring what the democrats have made of the confirmation process, and negotiating with a hostage taker. I.e., say whatever you must to take away their means of leverage, and get them into custody.
It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I could see a nominee dismissing anything said during confirmation as pointedly as the democrats ignored the unprecedented boycott by the entire Supreme Court of Bill Clinton's State of the Union Address.
There's no way of knowing at this point. I think that any anti-abortion nominee will deceive as necessary to get past the abortion questions, since the Democrats will refuse to approve anybody that fails their abortion-on-demand litmus test. That's just the hand we've been dealt.
Kicked in the teeth again.
He said it's "settled". He said it's "confirmed".
As far as being an "originalist", abortion was originally legal in this country and the idea that the fetus was legally a human or that the government should tell a man how to raise his family was hardly even considered.
Roberts is a Harvard educated elitist liberal. Just like Bush.
The only stare decisis the USSC needs is the Constitution. Else you end up with activist judges using international law to re-write the meaning of a Law.
Exactly. He is upholding the general principle of stare decisis, but that doesn't mean that a prior SCOTUS ruling cannot be overturned. It has been done repeatedly throughout our history.