On Abortion, Few Seem to Take Roberts at Face Value

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

[republicofdavis]

You just continue to drown in the liberal spin, no matter how many times it's pointed out to you. The main points of this article are that 1) He believes there is a constitutional right to privacy (there is, except it has nothing to do with abortion) and 2) he made the mandatory comments about respecting "settled law."

So what? And yes, I anticipate your response will be that he didn't have to say what he did about settled law. We have disagreed on that in the past and am certain we'll continue to do so.

[syriacus]

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

Precedents may deserve respect.

But do jurists have to enshrine and worship precedents like Sandra Day O'Connor did?....I don't think so.

The legacy of Sandra Day O'Connor

There once was a justice named Sandy
Whose voice sounded sweet, just like candy.
Still, her mouth went and said,
"You can puncture its head!!
If a baby's not thought to be dandy."

[syriacus]

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

Heh-heh. :-)

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

More ComPost divide-and-conquer BS....

[Ol' Sparky]

Conservatives must hope Roberts was lying to get the job and too ashamed to flatout admit that Roe was one of the worst examples of judicial tyranny imposed by SCOTUS.

[nwrep]

too ashamed to flatout admit that Roe was one of the worst examples of judicial tyranny imposed by SCOTUS.

I don't know what he would have gained by a sweeping declaration like that, more suited to a barn-burner, boilerplate diatribe from a talk-show host than a reasoned judge. In fact, such an unnecessary statement would have simply created opposition from the 7-8 pro-abortion Republicans, thereby sinking his nomination.

I am therefore glad that his answers were not based on shame, guilt, anger, or other emotions, but rather on reason.

[gop_gene]

Very interesting, and typical to say the least, how the author chooses to frame the opposing sides--those for "abortion rights" and those who are "anti-abortion". Why not address the latter as just "pro-life", or doesn't he want to do that because it sounds so much better? Or better yet, why not do the opposite and address pro-lifers as such and the opposing side as "anti-prolife" or "anti-life"?