Justice Roberts Hints He Could Overturn Roe

NewsMax ^ | 25 Jan 2010 | Theodore Kettle

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Chief Justice John Roberts last week made it clear that the Supreme Court over which he presides will not hesitate to sweep away its own major constitutional rulings when doing so is necessary to defend America’s bedrock governing document.

The announcement of that guiding core principle means two very big things. First, Roberts and his fellow strict constructionists on the court are now armed and ready with a powerful rationale for overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion ruling if Justice Anthony Kennedy or a future justice becomes the fifth vote against Roe.

Secondly, successfully placing Roberts atop the high court is beginning to look like former President George W. Bush’s most important legacy – a gift that will keep on giving for conservatives for decades.

In last Thursday’s 5-to-4 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling dismantling the McCain-Feingold campaign law, Roberts joined with fellow Bush appointee Justice Samuel Alito to issue a separate concurrence “to address the important principles of judicial restraint and stare decisis implicated in this case.”

While Roberts conceded that “departures from precedent are inappropriate in the absence of a ‘special justification,’” he quickly added that “At the same time, stare decisis is neither an ‘inexorable command’… nor ‘a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ … especially in constitutional cases,” noting that “If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants.”

Instead, under the “stare decisis” judicial doctrine of respecting past rulings, “When considering whether to re-examine a prior erroneous holding, we must balance the importance of having constitutional questions decided against the importance of having them decided right.” The chief justice declared: “stare decisis is not an end in itself.”

[BenKenobi]

Fredhead! :P

[gogeo]

What "help" did President Bush get on the John Roberts' nomination.

Can you refresh my memory?

I addressed SC nominations, which included the seat now held by Alito, not just Roberts.

What do you want to know? How much do you want to know?

I think (to address the larger picture) that we could have done a lot worse than W as Prez at that time and place, 9-11. That event pretty much determined that he would be limited in what he could have accomplished domestically.

W made the single biggest personnel decision right...that of Dick Cheney to lead his VP search committee. It was W, not Cheney, who decided that Cheney was the man he needed for VP.

It hasn't been well documented, but I believed at the time (and still do) that Cheney directed a lot of personnel decisions. They hit some home runs, most notably Rumsfeld and Ashcroft.

So, a lot was going on at the time of the Roberts/Alito nominations. How much do you want to know?

[Manic_Episode]

This is where Bush earned his keep.

[mlizzy]

May the Unborn Holocaust end in my lifetime!!! :*)

Mine too! There will be dancing in the streets!

[Nik Naym]

"One day... abortion will be illegal, and all the politicians who supported it will be forever stained by the blood of those they helped kill."

The first part of your statement has nothing to do with the second part.

Let me fix it up for you:

-All the politicians who supported abortion are forever stained by the blood of those they helped kill.-

And here is hoping the first part of your statement one day soon becomes true!

[reasonisfaith]

That depends on the definition of “dimes worth.”

[johnthebaptistmoore]

How about also overturning ALL of “American socialism” as well as really finding out exactly where and exactly when Obama was born?

[GodBlessAmericaKD]

Go Justice Roberts. If stare decisis was as sacred as progressives would have us all believe, then segregation would still be the law of the land. What is important is that they look at cases with a fresh eye and determine if the issues of law before the court are compatible with the limitations imposed on government through the Constitution. In this case, I think it is clear, MF was not keeping with the freedom of speech - especially political speech - which our founders wanted. With a little luck, this court will look at some of the overly expansive rulings on the commerce clause and use an appropriate case to roll back the intrusive powers of regulation this government has exercised over the past century.

[MSF BU]

This may come back to haunt him if Cornell West replaces Justice Kennedy.

[AmericanVictory]

Under the Constitution, the laws of homicide were left to the states. They should have remained there.

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

I am glad to read Justice Roberts opinion of stare decisis. It sounds quite reasonable. When I heard about the McCain-Feingold overturning, I thought that the ruling beyond just McC-F, should have signalled to Libturds everywhere, some more of their tyranny was in jeopardy as the SCOTUS felt quite at ease overturning Congress, and not just state laws.

We need one more reliable 5th vote.

Some may disagree, but I have said for years, the number #1 priority of conservatives is a truly originalist supreme court. Most of our political problems come from libturd rulings. The Libturds on the court have done far more damage to this country than Al-Qaeda and Hussein (Obama or Saddam) combined. If we have political capital, this is where it has to be spent, even before Afghanistan or Iraq.

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

With the country a vote short of health care tyranny, this ruling also suggests to me that a Roberts court to declare the whole thing unconstitutional may not just be wishful thinking at all, should it come to pass anyway.

[pepsi_junkie]

Gee, that sounds similar to what prompted the 14th amendment. How can you be a person in one state and not a person in another? :D Excellent counter-argument. Of course the lefties on the court will rule otherwise, modern day Roger Tawney's that they are. But if the court has the votes to overrule Roe V Wade, you have to assume they have the votes to uphold the rest of the constitution.

[sergeantdave]

As long as we’re drawing up wish lists, I want to see the court overturn the ridiculous decision that congress can give its law-making power to unelected bureaucrats. This asinine ruling laid the groundwork for an American dictatorship by unaccountable functionaries. That is exactly the condition that existed in the communist USSR and Hitler’s fascist Germany.

If it’s not done soon, Americans will need to remove this dictatorial power by any means necessary or become slaves.

[ohioWfan]

LOL! I don't actually need to be told anything.

This article is about John Roberts, and you gave others credit for a decision that George W. Bush made.

Roberts is his nominee, and to his credit alone. (Not his or your "friends."

I just wanted to know if you thought you had some influence. As for Cheney's 'directing' the personnel decisions, I'd love to see your 'documentation' of that.

In the mean time, perhaps you should seek to be more accurate in your comments.

[kinsman redeemer]

However, forgiveness is available from Jesus Christ.
Amen

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Wow. Just, WOW! :) BUMP!

[stevie_d_64]

That’s basically what it’ll do...

Liberals are not hip to the idea that states will (if this goes down) now be decided by the states themselves...

I dunno what all the hub bub is about on bothsides of the equation...It just means there will be states that sanction the murder of unborn lives, and others which don’t...

I see it dividing right down between the red/blue states borders...Meaning you’ll have to move, or setup permanent residence, and be living in those red states for more than 6-9 months before you can be eligible to have an abortion (as a “state” condition)...

hehehe, that should dampen the murderers efforts around the country...

[Fu-fu2]

Ping to your #107

[jsdjason]

This is not necessarily what would happen. It will depend on the rationale employed for overturning Roe v. Wade. If Roe v. Wade is overturned because the justices view abortion as “murder” then obviously no state will able to legalize abortion. If it is overturned because the Court believes that states should be able to outlaw abortion, then the states would have the ability to either legalize or criminalize.

It is highly unlikely that a state will pass a law outlawing ALL abortions, thus this issue will never reach the Court. The more likely scenario is that suit is brought seeking an injunction to stop an abortion doctor from killing an unborn child. In this case, the legality of killing the unborn would be at issue.