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.”

[cammie]

Griswold, although starting the line of reasoning that led to Roe, involved only private, consensual sexual conduct (similar to Lawrence). It is easily distinguishable from Roe, in which there is a third interest (the baby).

[Dajjal]

Pro-Life bump

[Kickass Conservative]

>If Roe is overturned, each of the 50 states (or is it 57?) will make their own rules on abortion.<

That is Scalia’s position. He does NOT equate a Fetus as being a living person. He thinks it is a States Rights issue.

Abortion in itself will never be illegal IMHO.

It may well be restricted, I.E. Viability of the Fetus, Rape, Incest or Life of the Mother...

[ohioWfan]

It wasn't 'snottiness'........it was heavy duty sarcasm that you would give anyone else credit for John Roberts (you, yourself?) when he was George W. Bush's choice.

Actually, so was Sam Alito. The reason that Miers failed was that she didn't do well in her interviews. And Alito was one of his top choices, at the ready when Miers failed (who was also chosen because she had the judicial philosophy that he wanted in a SC justice).

The credit for Alito goes to entirely Bush. Both Roberts and Alito had the originalist Constitutional philosophy that President Bush understood was critical to the future of this country and reflected his own conservative judicial philosophy. And because of his choices, this dear Republic of ours is hanging on by a thread. Bush's thread. You can't take credit for either man.

Any thing else you'd like to have cleared up? I'm here for you. :)

[gogeo]

Actually, so was Sam Alito. The reason that Miers failed was that she didn't do well in her interviews. And Alito was one of his top choices, at the ready when Miers failed (who was also chosen because she had the judicial philosophy that he wanted in a SC justice)...

You are clueless here. Miers had no judicial experience. She would have to have actual judicial experience before she could have a judicial philosophy. She was an administrator; she didn't deal in law. She wasn't even a working lawyer. To say she didn't do well in interviews is world class understatement; she didn't do well because she was poorly qualified.

All of us here with knowledge of law have opinions of constitutional law, but we cannot be said to have a judicial philosophy. Nor can she.

Her only asset was the flip side of the coin of her inexperience; she had no judicial record. I remember how well that worked with his dad and Souter.

Sam Alito, on the other hand, was/is considered to be one of the brightest legal minds of this generation, in the same neighborhood as Roberts.

She was a crony appointment. W had to be beat about the head and shoulders to change his mind.

In baseball terms, Roberts is a grand-slam HR. Alito is a 2 RBI HR. On her best day, Miers is maybe a single.

That episode illustrates that when we hire someone, we have to keep a short leash. I was an early supporter of W and I'm comfortable acknowledging his shortcomings. He got along well with people, but he was not a good judge of people, and was inappropriately loyal to his friends.

Since we're the 'bosses,' that's our responsibility.

I'd say you did have to have your memory refreshed, if I were kind...what I suspect instead is that you weren't aware of this at the time. One can't be reminded of something one never knew.

Maybe you can pay attention next time...

[ohioWfan]

Setting all your snarkiness, condescension and misquoting aside, I will point out that you continue to miss my point for whatever reason.

Sam Alito is on the Supreme Court because he was chosen by George W. Bush. You can call him a failure because, mistaken or not, he thought Miers would be a good justice, but she didn't cut it, and as soon as she dropped out, the President nominated this man....

And because of that, anyone being reasonable would give him credit.

I have been paying close attention for a lot of years, and am well aware of what has gone on. I also remember a well intentioned choice by one Ronald Reagan named Sandra Day O'Connor......and you probably know how well that worked out too.........or don't you?

This will be my last post to you. George W. Bush chose two.....not one, but TWO stellar SC Justices, including a Chief Justice who SHARE his judicial philosophy.

And because of that, we have hope that Roe v. Wade might be overturned, and at least some of the millions of babies being slaughtered in the country might be rescued.

That should make you happy. Even if it pains you to have to give President Bush credit for it...

You may have the last word.

[MinorityRepublican]

States’ Rights issue. Abortion shouldn’t be banned (or legalized) on the federal level.

[TomasUSMC]

After the disrespect obambi threw down at the Supremes last night, point blank in their face on NationWide TV....I’d say the Supremes will have their payback, oh yeah.

[TomasUSMC]

If ever there was a law that should be overturned, it is Roe v. Wade. Take a stand for life and you will find a new and improved America.
//////////////////
And as soon as the GOP starts talking about Abortion again, it will start winning again.

[EDINVA]

The important thing that I believed about Roberts from the time of his confirmation for Chief Justice is that he is able to persuade Justice Kennedy in a way that apparently the late CJ Rehnquist could not do. We really should thank God for this man’s appointment, and pray for his and his colleagues’ continuing good health.

[Spacetrucker]

If Roe is overturned, each of the 50 states (or is it 57?) will make their own rules on abortion.

---

AS IT SHOULD BE ... constitutionally speaking

[HighlyOpinionated]

If Roe is overturned, each of the 50 states (or is it 57?) will make their own rules on abortion.

Not if the argument is made and the Constitutionality is made that "life" begins at conception and the fetus is a real person with the same unalienable rights as the mother and that it would be UNEQUAL rights to give the mother more rights than the unborn child.

And it might be argued that conception out of wedlock could once again become the exception rather than the norm.