On Abortion, Few Seem to Take Roberts at Face Value

Washington Post ^ | 9/17/05 | Charles Babington

[Crackingham]

In 20 hours of Senate testimony this week, John G. Roberts Jr. made several comments that would seem reassuring to abortion rights advocates and unsettling to those seeking to outlaw abortion. There is a constitutional right to privacy, he said. And justices should show significant deference to long-settled cases such as the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion ruling.

But the reaction from both camps in the abortion wars was startling. Abortion rights groups took no comfort in the chief justice nominee's remarks, and antiabortion groups took no offense. The reason, activists on the left and right say, is that both sides vividly remember Clarence Thomas's 1991 confirmation hearing in the same Senate Judiciary Committee room.

Abortion rights groups vilify Thomas, and antiabortion groups hail him, for telling senators he had never discussed or thought about Roe , only to advocate its rejection soon after joining the high court. That 14-year-old hearing echoed so loudly in the Hart Senate Office Building this week that virtually none of the activists seemed willing or able to take Roberts's remarks at face value.

Roe is "settled as a precedent of the court," Roberts told the committee, and is "entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis ." The term is Latin for "to stand by that which is decided."

"I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent," Roberts said. "It is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided."

[msnimje]

The MSM is furious with Judge Roberts for not taking the bite and giving them something to crow about.
They will have plenty when President Bush nominates Karl Rove to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat.

[tflabo]

ABORTION: No child left behind-----alive!

[mother22wife21]

X

[syriacus]

There is a constitutional right to privacy, he said

But he did not say there was a constitutional right to kill defenseless humans.

[kcvl]

Washington Post congressional correspondent Charles Babington attempted to analyze what he saw as a disconnect between members of Congress, who tend to be either very liberal or very conservative, and the general electorate which tends to be more moderate.

Charles Babington, Washington Post's story on the vote in the Senate on Condoleezza Rice's nomination:

Some of the Democrats who opposed Rice were centrists from states in which President Bush won or ran strongly in November, including Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

The Post article, still bylined Charles Babington, has now been completely rewritten. It now covers both the Senate vote on Dr. Rice and the Judiciary Committee vote on Alberto Gonzales. The paragraph referring to Senators Dayton, Harkin et al. voting against Dr. Rice has now been deleted in its entirety. There is still a reference to "centrists," however. The article now says:

As in Tuesday's day-long debate on Rice's nomination, yesterday's criticisms came not only from liberal Democrats but also from more centrist or independent members who have backed the Bush administration on key issues.

For example, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) voted against Gonzales's confirmation even though he had voted in 2001 to confirm Ashcroft, a staunch conservative and an irritant to many liberal groups.

[mumps]

They will have plenty when President Bush nominates Karl Rove to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat.

Is this under serious consideration?

[martin_fierro]

They will have plenty when President Bush nominates Karl Rove to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat.

Dream on. Never happen.

[Susannah]

I think anyone could say there is a "constitutional right to privacy", but that certainly doesn't indicate how it would be interpretated related to abortion.

Ann Coulter referred to John Roberts as "Souter in Roberts clothing", but I have a feeling Roberts won't end up as liberal as Souter. It is interesting, though that when Bush Sr. chose Souter in 1990 the progressives rallied against him with the message "Stop Souter, he'll let women die". That may be why 9 Democrat Senators, including John Kerry voted against Souter even though he became part of the left-wing of the Supreme Court.

here's the link to the 1990 votes on the nomination of Souter...if anyone is interested in seeing the 9 Democrats who voted against him:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=2&vote=00259

[endthematrix]

I had my misgivings about Roberts listing to his hearing testimony. I held on to the positives...until I read "Souter in Roberts clothing." (Thanks for the citing) Ann fears my fears. I'm holding out, and we can only hope he'll give our Constitution more than a fair shake when the time comes. When he balks, I'll be there to protest.

[Susannah]

According to an entry I read at wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood , the Supreme Court is slated to hear a case related to an abortion law that required a parental consent or notification for minors...which Planned Parenthood says is unconstitutional.

If Roberts makes it to the Supreme Court before that case is heard in November of 2005, it will provide some evidence of where Roberts stands on abortion rights.

[John from Camden]

First post here.

IMO, you can't take any SCOTUS justice nominee at face value. When the questions are designed to paint the candidate as an ideologue on any issue, a constructionist would be at a disadvantage if he was to stray from that stance by directly answering any question pertaining to the "hot issues."

[fml]

Welcome John (from fml in Medford)

Agree totally, these hearing are simply senators strutting their stuff for the paying special intrests groups to continue forking out the money.

[Les_Miserables]

As a late life adoptive parent, having the understanding that if the birth mother had chosen abortion, the bright eyes and smiles of his son and daughter would have been discarded in the trash of the abortion clinic, my bet and hope is that will frame his understanding of the murderous result of Roe. It certainly has mine. My own daughter is a very effective debator on the subject of the value of her own life thanks to the moral decision of her birth mother. Otherwise the world would be without her insight and the blessings she has bestowed on her parents, friends and the children she teaches.

[BibChr]

I haven't yet seen anyone point out -- though someone must have! -- that Roberts grounded the Constitutional right to privacy in the first, fourth, and one other amendment. The "right" that was cited for Rowe was based on an eisegesis of the fourteenth amendment. Roberts did not cite that amendment. I find that significant.

Dan

[Amalie]

You could be right. Nonetheless, Roberts' continued deference to precedent is troubling. At this stage, his loss is very unlikely, and he has probably allied some liberal fears with his statements (not to mention eating their lunch when questioned directly). The White House disappoints me at times, but I am hopeful the next nominee will be a true conservative. If it is Gonzales, it will bitterly disappointing for many of us who thought the opportunity to change the court would be for the better...

[tame]

There is a constitutional right to privacy, he said

But he did not say there was a constitutional right to kill defenseless humans.

No, he only said that we should respect the precedent of allowing the murder of defensless humans.

[tame]

...I have a feeling Roberts won't end up as liberal as Souter.

Oh, gee, how encouraging. For the first time in a long time we have the opportunity to guarantee that the Supreme court will shift back to originalism, and all we get is someone who might not be as far to the left as Souter.

Just damn.

[msnimje]

"They will have plenty when President Bush nominates Karl Rove to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat."

Dream on. Never happen.

Please tell me I did not need a sarcasm to tag to make that statement.

[msnimje]

They will have plenty when President Bush nominates Karl Rove to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat.

Is this under serious consideration?

No, not all.

But I do have a fantasy about him "leaking" such information out of the White House just to watch them Dems implode.