Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pro-Choice Groups Fret Over John Roberts
The Washington Post via The Register-Guard ^ | September 17, 2005 | Charles Babington

Posted on 09/20/2005 1:54:23 PM PDT by new yorker 77

WASHINGTON - In 20 hours of Senate testimony this week, John Roberts made 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 vs. 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 anti-abortion groups took no offense. The reason, activists on the left and right say, is that both sides vividly remember Clarence Thomas' 1991 confirmation hearing in the same Senate Judiciary Committee room.

Abortion-rights groups vilify Thomas, and anti-abortion 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.

.....

``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.''

Were these not hints that Roberts, if confirmed, would be loath to revisit Roe?

Not at all, said Leonard Leo, on leave from the conservative Federalist Society to promote the confirmation effort. ``What he said about privacy is, in substance, no different from what other recent nominees have said ... Justice Clarence Thomas in particular,'' Leo said in an interview. And Roberts' discussion of stare decisis, he said, ``was almost as though you were having a glimpse into the way a judge would sit in his chambers and do the analysis: ... Maybe there are times when a jolt in the legal system is acceptable.''

....

(Excerpt) Read more at registerguard.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: johnroberts; proaborts; robertshearings
Abortion-rights groups were dismayed by the testimony. ``While Roberts wanted to give the impression he respected the right to privacy and the precedent of Roe v. Wade, his answers look dangerously similar to the responses Clarence Thomas gave senators during his confirmation hearings,'' said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

The record shows that Roberts discussed Roe in considerably more detail than did Thomas. Liberals say Thomas misled the Senate about his strongly anti-abortion views and now is awaiting his chance to overturn Roe. Some fear Roberts might do the same.

His comments chilled liberal groups, including the National Women's Law Center. Its co-president, Marcia Greenberger, told the committee Thursday: ``Like Justice Thomas during his confirmation hearing, Judge Roberts said there is a right to privacy and it applies to the marital relationship and the use of contraceptives, but he refused to say how much further its protections would go.''

It's all a matter of trust.

If you trust Bush, you trust in Roberts.

Reagan said, "Trust but Verify."

I've verified.

Bush has placed a 50 year old conservative of good temperment to be Cheif Justice for maybe the next 35 years. Roberts is part of his legacy.

Liberals are on the verge of tears and some paranoid conservatives with loser-mental status only assume the worst. This is what happens when paranoia clouds your judgement.

Roberts calls himself a "practicing" Catholic.

I am a practicing Catholic. Catholics who use the word "practicing" as a adjective to describe their catholocism are about as Pro-Life as you will every get. Roberts is a "NO" on Roe and Liberals can't stand it.

1 posted on 09/20/2005 1:54:30 PM PDT by new yorker 77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

"Catholics who use the word "practicing" as a adjective to describe their catholocism are about as Pro-Life as you will every get."


You got that right.


2 posted on 09/20/2005 2:03:08 PM PDT by IMRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77
There is a constitutional right to privacy....

Libs are so convoluted in their logic they think this means the "right" to an abortion. It is just stupid.

3 posted on 09/20/2005 2:19:52 PM PDT by msnimje (Cogito Ergo Sum Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

Trouble in my enemy's tent makes me happy. :-)


4 posted on 09/20/2005 3:15:38 PM PDT by jmaroneps37 (The quisling ratmedia: always eager to remind us of why we hate them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
Roberts cited the 4th Amendment. He didn't mention the 9th and 10th.

The 4th focuses on "unreasonable searches and seizures", so, I suppose, in that sense it is a right of privacy from un-warranted government surveillance.

Roberts made what is actually a very, very, very Conservative, and limited, defense of a "privacy" right.

What the Dems and Libs seem to not understand is that it's the 9th and 10th amendments that provide that Penumbra of Emanations that give you the right to kill your neighbor if he agrees to it.

5 posted on 09/20/2005 3:25:59 PM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
What the Dems and Libs seem to not understand is that it's the 9th and 10th amendments that provide that Penumbra of Emanations that give you the right to kill your neighbor if he agrees to it.

It might be easier to list what the Dems DO understand.

6 posted on 09/20/2005 3:32:23 PM PDT by msnimje (Cogito Ergo Sum Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

I did. You must have missed it.


7 posted on 09/20/2005 4:24:32 PM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson