In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Precedence and Abortion

Lauren

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling on abortion was “settled as a precedent of the court” as he was immediately pressed to address the divisive issue on the second day of his confirmation hearings.

“It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis,” the concept that long-settled decisions should be given extra weight, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee…

“There’s nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedent of the court faithfully under the principles of stare decisis,” Roberts said.

Stare decisis is Latin for “to stand by a decision” and legally translates into the doctrine that says courts are bound by previous decisions, or precedents, particularly when a case has been decided by a higher court.

Questioned about rights of privacy, the appellate judge cited various amendments of the Constitution that he said protect those rights, and said, “I do think the right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.”

Specter, a moderate Republican who supports abortion rights, asked if the Roe v. Wade decision was a “super-duper precedent” in light of efforts to overturn it.

Roberts noted that the Supreme Court itself upheld the basics of Roe v. Wade in a 1992 case, Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

“That, I think, is the decision that any judge in this area would begin with,” Roberts said.

Still not buying it, judge-for-life.

12 thoughts on Precedence and Abortion

  1. But he says it with such sincerity and conviction (I’m watching his face and listening to his voice right now) that they aren’t bugging him too much.

    Leahy pressed him on Casey v. Planned Parenthood and then on another case with regards to Title IX rights where Roberts position was disagreed with by Connor and others, with those Justices telling him he had missed the point. I have to admit that I did love that part, lol. (It was a case of a high school girl but I didn’t listen to the specifics as I’m trying to work as I listen.)

  2. I have to add this: because he’s being such a peach about this whole thing, and the fact that he’s already a shoe-in, no one is going to fight too hard for those missing 1200 pages and such. *sigh*

  3. Stare decisis is another of those completely worthless, non-moral principles that both sides of the spectrum invoke whenever it suits them. It’s not something that should be embraced by those with predominantly liberal views who believe that much needs to be changed (or, for that matter, by conservatives who think that the law is too liberal).

    I’m surprised Roberts made such a strong statement on the issue; given his intentions, it’s quite close to lying.

  5. The more I listen to the “questioning”, the more I realize he indeed can’t seem to remember his own rulings. The Dem’s are taking him to task while the Repubs are like, “Here’s a fellow Repub! We want to be nice to him so he’ll be confirmed!”

    Seriously, the difference in interviewing styles is so totally different. Totally blogwhoring: I blogged about the last 2 hours of stuff, mostly from Senator Biden who has been taking Roberts apart. I must have been sleeping through Kennedy’s task-taking but I heard it was good. 😉

  6. “Choice” notwithstanding, I don’t agree with the principle espoused by Roberts and elsewhere that a society shouldn’t revisit “settled law” from time-to-time. Wasn’t the right to own slaves “settled law” at one time?

  7. Good point Roxanne.

    This guy hasn’t answered a single question despite Joe Biden’s DeNiro impressions. Truthfully, I think we all should be more worried about O’Connor’s replacement than Mr. Roberts. Johnny Boy is Bush’s Manchurian Candidate.

  8. Of course, it’s going to be enough to satisfy the Democrats into not filibustering, and he’s going to be confirmed.

    Notice how he’s not actually *promising* anything? So if he votes to overturn Roe, they can’t do anything to him for going against his word that he gave in his confirmation hearings.

    I do not like this. And, like Bush & Kerry in the Presidential debates, he is far too adept at answering questions without answering the questions.

  9. The questions aren’t being asked particularly well, or there’s not adequate follow up. As an appellate judge Roberts is bound by stare decisis, he has no choice but to follow precedent established by a higher court. However, having established the precedent the Supreme Court is not bound by it in the same way. I might be reading too much into the language, but Roberts answers how a judge would approach precedent (being bound by decisions of a higher court), which is entirely different from how a justice would approach the same problem.

  10. It seems to me like Roberts is giving the kind of answers liberals should be hoping for. Clearly he’s a religious Catholic and probably against abortion on principle. But it really does seem like he believes in stare decisis and is willing to uphold the law as objectively as possible. I don’t care if he would vote against abortion rights and gay marriage in a referendum (at least as far as the confirmation is concerned). I want to know what role those beliefs will play in his decisions. And he’s answered that question pretty clearly: “There’s nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedent of the court faithfully under the principles of stare decisis.”

    Stare decisis is another of those completely worthless, non-moral principles that both sides of the spectrum invoke whenever it suits them. It’s not something that should be embraced by those with predominantly liberal views who believe that much needs to be changed (or, for that matter, by conservatives who think that the law is too liberal).

    I don’t agree. Stare decisis is what keeps the law predictable. Just imagine what would happen If Justices would have to rejudge every prior relevant case each time a similar issue appears before them. Incidently, I think one major reason for stare decisis is to make the Court less political. If Roberts is telling the truth, then it’s working.

  11. Stare decisis is what keeps the law predictable.

    Yes, but predictability is bad if the law is bad. Juveniles get predictably executed. Blacks were predictably segregated for a half-century. It was precisely because the Supreme Court threw stare decisis in the garbage in 2003 and overruled its idiotic 1986 decision that homosexuality was no longer predictably criminalized.

    Stare decisis works for non-moral issues like contract default rules, i.e., whether the acceptance of an offer occurs at the time of mailing or upon receipt. On the big moral issues, which is what the Supreme Court decides, it’s silly. The argument that “we have to do what this case says because its settled law is no different from obeying the Bible because it’s old.

    I think one major reason for stare decisis is to make the Court less political.

    The court is as political as any branch of government can get. It decides purely political issues. Stare decisis simply makes bad political decisions more entrenched.

Comments are currently closed.