Roberts Said "Roe Settled Law of the Land"..

[Laura PourMeADrink]

In response to direct questioning about Roe v. Wade, Roberts refused to characterize his opinion on the case - he instead told the committee that he would uphold settled law. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land, it was even reaffirmed," Roberts said. "There is nothing in my personal views that would keep me from upholding it." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) told Roberts that his answers in regard to Roe v. Wade were evasive. "I need more," Durbin said.


The above from Robert's last confirmation hearing on subject of Roe. Article also opines that Democrats did not ask him enough questions then - they just voted for him.

http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2003/11/more-on-estrada.html

[Sparkly]

1. It'll be a Clarence Thomas "I never really thought about it."

"My job was just to argue a particular point of view when I wrote that brief. I may or may not hold that view. I haven't even thought about it!"

[atre]

2. There is a difference

Lower court judges don't have the judicial authority to subvert "well-settled law." Supreme Court Justices do.

[MoonRiver]

3. Leahy just mentioned that on C-SPAN2

Democrats reactions to Roberts' nomination.

[DefenseLawyer]

4. That is meaningless

It is a safe answer when being confirmed for the Court of Appeals. The issue was decided by the Supreme Court, only a nut like Roy Moore would say on the record that he would ignore existing precedent as an appeals court judge. It doesn't say anything about how he would vote on the issue if he was on the SCOTUS and actually had a vote.

[writes2000]

5. Well he does speak about his personal beliefs.

He says there is nothing in his personal beliefs that would implore him to work to overtun Roe v. Wade.

[sonicx]

7. He's lying. He said he wanted to overturn RvW while working for Bush 1

Also, since this nomination was a for lower court, he couldn't really say much else since it had no effect on Roe. the SC does.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. link?

[woodleydem]

15. He wasn't speaking of his own personal views. He was representing

the first Bush Administration as their legal counsel, and it was the Administration's contention that Roe had been decided incorrectly, not necessarily his views. I know it sounds like a mere technicality, but as a law student, I can tell you it's a big difference. In his 2003 Senate confirmation hearings, he said that his personal views wouldn't prevent him from upholding Roe. He didn't have any abortion cases during his time on the DC Court, so we have no idea how he will rule on issues like parental notification, late-term abortions, etc... Of course, he could have been lying in his 2003 confirmation hearings about his abortion views. But in reality, if he had ever made a public statement against Roe, there were enough votes to confirm him anyway. It will be an interesting and anxious time next fall when the Supreme Court reconvenes.

[DefenseLawyer]

12. It's tricky

He didn't say anything about "overturning" Roe v. Wade, he said nothing about his personal beliefs would keep him from "upholding" it- as a judge on the Court of Appeals. Once the Supreme Court as established a legal precedent, a Court of Appeals judge can't "overturn" one of their decisions, even if he wants to. So all he is saying there is that he's not a nut that would not follow binding precedent. No one seeking to be confirmed to the COA would say anything less. It is not at all inconsistent to say "as an Appeals Court judge I would follow RvW, but as a Supreme Court Justice I would vote to overturn it".

[kurtyboy]

6. Don't fall for this one--its a trick.

Roberts said that in the context of being confirmed for a Circuit Court position. He HAD TO SAY hea agreed with the law of the land, because Circuit Court aren't supposed to overturn USSC decisions (The rule of stare decisis, ot "let what is decided, stand")

The Supreme Court justices can and do ignore stare decisis--it's pretty much in their job description. If not, we'd still have separate but equal segregation of the races.

This is precisely why Pres. Bush cited Scott v. Sanford in last years debates--some decisions are bad, and the law of the land must be brought into accord with what is just. It was a quiet sop forthe Far-right who want Roe overturned. This guy is gonna have to answer the question again, and under oath to boot.

[The Jacobin]

8. That is the difference btw Appellate Court and Supreme Court

The appellate court judge should always follow the supreme court. There is no room for an appellate court judge to modify Roe. From that perspective, it is definately settled -- and any appellate court appointee that said otherwise would definately lack "judicial temperment."

But all bets are off at the supreme court level. They can reconsider their own decisions in light of developments in law and society.

He should answer or be filibustered.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. Forget Roberts for a second. What would a good RvW answer

be for a nominee? Can they come right out and say they could not contemplate ever overturning it ??

[The Jacobin]

14. Stare decisis

Stare decisis is the best answer.

Changes in decided cases should only occur after major shifts in law and society. The best answer would be to throw it back on the senators and say the best solution would be a constitutional one through a political process. Until then, stare decisis.

[dolstein]

9. Yes, and Plessy v. Ferguson was "settled law" until it was overruled

NT

[Sparkly]

13. That's bull.

They want to send it back to the states, and they may succeed.

[zara]

16. Republicans don't want to overturn Roe...

its too valuable to them as proof of the hated liberal state.

[DeepModem Mom]

17. kick