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 ...
Why? All he is saying is that previoius decisions should be given consideration. He is not saying they are bound by them.
When and in what context did he say 'settled'. Saying it was 'confirmed' is just stating an obvious fact.
Oh, nevermind, I found it. Roberts said "settled as a precedent." Roberts is again stating another obvious fact. Unless you are denying that Roe v. Wade is a precedent.
That's when.
Exactly. Too often, we seem willing to embrace judicial activism so long as they're our judicial activists.
And what is wrong with that statement? Roberts is simply stating facts. It is 'settled as a precedent' and it is 'entitled to repsect'. You can say that about any Supreme Court ruling that has not been overturned.
Do you think Anton Scalia or Clarence Thomas would make such a statement?
Yes. All decisions which have not been overturned deserve respect, no matter how wrong they are. All Roberts is saying is you should read them and consider them. If they got it wrong, there is nothing there that says you can't overturn them. Roberts is just making simple statements of fact.
That would be true if the Republicans were in the minority in the Senate. The Republicans have 55 seats. It shouldn't make one bit of difference what the minority party thinks if they don't have the votes to stop a nomination or the constitutional option.
It's no wonder Republicans keeping winning elections and conservatives have virtually nothing to show for it. Both the Republican party and conservatives behave like losers. Either that or Bush and the Republicans don't really have any intention of keeping their promises to nominate Scalia-like originalists.
Clinton and the Democrats didn't once fail to nominate an open leftist to the court and had no problem getting Breyer or Ginsburg approved. Until Republicans and conservatives get a backbone, the Supreme Court isn't going to change no matter how much Kool-Aid one drinks.
Your pansy attitude is why the democrats need not win elections and still control government
What a dumb/politically correct answer, although one he probably felt that he had to give. His Catholic faith should influence every moment of his life on earth, including each and every decision he makes.
The best one can hope for is that John Roberts is a liar and too ashamed to state examples of judicial activism by the court are wrong. Sounds like a guy with no principles at all, the same kind of guy that would donate his time for free to gay rights activists.
It's not possible for change to occur on the court when conservatives are willing to champion someone as unprincipled as Roberts.
Excellent comments. Fortunately, there are those among us who answer to an even higher Judge.
-PJ
plessy vs fergesun and dredscott were both precident.
Conservatives fooled again.
I know, I was just showing what they were referring to before you posted about your clarification. I still think it's pitiful though that even though we have a majority in Congress, Republican nominees have to tiptoe through questions instead of saying what we all know, that there is no Constitutional right to murder children.
What makes Bush a liberal?
Open your eyes. His wife is pro-choice, his kids are pro-choice, practically his entire youth was dedicated to irresponsibility, he's never had a negative judgement against any of his friends, allies or family no matter their misbehavior, he bends over backwards to make clear that his own personal beliefs are entirely liberal and nonjudgemental on drugs, gays, abortion, irresponsibility, lying, theft, adultery, etc. etc.
Yes, yes, "We're all sinners" as he says, and yes, he's willing to lock up poor people on virtually any pretext, but this man has no interest in placing the burden of the law on people for moral misbehavior. He just says that. It works. He is a liberal Christian who plays a conservative one to get elected. This kind of behavior is considered normal among the elite.
Such a lie is permissible because it is the lesser of two evils. Lie or allow an innocent person to be murdered.
The analogy fails here because Roberts can say that while he dutifully adheres to Catholic teaching, the Church teaches that he shouldn't impose particularly Catholic teachings on non-Catholics. Moreover, Church teachings require that his rulings not violate the natural law, a law written on the human heart which is not exclusive to Catholics, Christians or theists of any religion.
That said, it gets a little dicey because he took an oath to testify truthfully. Does the unentitlement to truth trump the oath?
It may be permissible to duck the question, although I don't see the issue as a loser at all. It would be a great opportunity to create a public debate regarding natural law and abortion.
But effectively saying that he won't be a slave to Church teaching is a very grave lie, if it is a lie, or woeful ignorance of Church teaching.
I'm looking for a silver lining, I admit.
I know. I want an orthodox Catholic in there too. But I'm not seeing it right now.
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.