Roberts Sidesteps Landmark Abortion Ruling

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts on Tuesday declined to discuss his views on the landmark 1973 ruling on abortion but said the concept of legal precedent is a "very important consideration."

On the second day of his confirmation hearings, President Bush's choice for the nation's 17th chief justice said that as of 1992, when the Supreme Court ruled in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the high court has emphasized the principles that had been settled for years.

"It's entitled to respect under those principles," Roberts said.

Moderate Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee chairman, immediately questioned Roberts about the divisive issue of abortion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/roberts;_ylt=AmAG1RJqdM0qK6OVHBskW16s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

[Supersedeas]

1. Republicans growing a backbone???

[msongs]

2. why not? the dems do not have one. otherwise they would be

doing something about electronic voting fraud.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/impeachbush.htm

[melissinha]

5. Well... just remember what Specter is up against

His life depends on stem cell research which is being fought with the same argument that right to chose abortion is up against.

[enough]

7. Come on, Specter has already stated on the record that

Roberts will make an excellent chief justice. Notice he said WILL. Whatever he's doing now is meaningless.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Roberts does not believe in Griswold (the birth control ruling)

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) was the landmark ruling by SCOTUS that established the principle that there was an implied right to privacy in the Constitution. Roe is based on Griswold!

Let's ask Roberts if he is a member of Opus Dei!

[correlator]

51. Roberts and Griswald

I thought I heard Roberts say today that he thought Griswald was correctly decided and that he would be surprised if it came up again.

[HockeyMom]

59. Bush Sex Education Slogan

Abstinence Only until Marriage and Faithfulness In Marriage. See? Who NEEDS birth control?

[Triana]

4. This conniving little squirrely man....

..once advised other SC nominees on just how to avoid answering such questions with any substance. I believe Sandra Day OConnor was one that he had previously advised.

He's an expert at avoiding giving answers that are too telling - he's expert at evasion tactics, in other words.

Sneaky little scumbag...

[Bzzzz]

6. We are...

DOOMED!!!:scared:

[not fooled]

41. Yup...

...Roe is toast. Many more 'Murkans are pro-choice than not. Way to go 'pukes, shoving your extremist religious twaddle down the throat of America. Yeah, we are doomed.

[nolabels]

8. Them are the best ones to set a trap for but given the cicumstances.......

There are always things like Katrina to set people free or un-free as the case might be :puke:

5...10...20.....40 how many more years of dishonest government can we take?

[bliss_eternal]

44. I noticed that in the way he was responding...

:( :mad: :grr:

the boy king stated a long time ago, he wanted to see Roe V. Wade done away with. He now has the opportunity to nominate the guy who will do it for him--does anyone here really think they are going to 'tip their hand' at the way they plan to play the game?

:eyes:

[merwin]

9. Roberts Says U.S. Constitution Covers Privacy Rights

Roberts Says U.S. Constitution Covers Privacy Rights

Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- John Roberts, the nominee to be U.S. chief justice, told a Senate panel that the Constitution contains a right to privacy, disavowing comments he made as a government lawyer in the 1980s.

``The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways,'' Roberts, 50, said in answer to a question from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

The Supreme Court since 1965 has recognized a constitutional right to privacy that now guarantees access to abortion and contraceptives as well as the freedom to marry and procreate. Roberts's views on the subject had been in question, in part because of the language he used in a 1981 Justice Department memo, referring to the ``so-called `right to privacy.'''
...
Roberts also suggested he would be slow to overturn such Supreme Court rulings as the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey abortion-rights decision, calling it a ``precedent of the court entitled to respect.''

``It is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent,'' said Roberts, who would be the youngest U.S. chief justice in two centuries. ``Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. It is not enough to think the prior decision was wrongly decided.''
...

[Vickers]

10. "who would be the youngest U.S. chief justice in two centuries"

That alone should freak you out.

[getting old in mke]

12. I'm afraid all we can do

at this juncture is hope that the far right wing's biggest fears about Roberts are true...that he'll do a "Stephen Breyer"

Not that I'm hopeful. Still, at least at this point, he's replacing Rehnquist instead of O'Connor and that could leave a battle for a moderate justice (sad that I can't even bring myself to dream of a liberal justice) still in the future.

[midnight armadillo]

13. There will be NO MODERATE APPOINTEES

The next one BUsh picks will be just as reactionary and radical as Roberts will prove to be. Wait til they decide the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to state governments...

[iamjoy]

33. Are You Thinking Of Souter?

getting old in mke - Breyer was nominated by President Clinton. Souter was nominated by Bush I.

[nolabels]

30. Yea and two thirds of a slave or there abouts

Do we get to go back to pistol matches too :woohoo:

[CAcyclist]

56. But Excludes The Ninth Amendment From That List

It is the Ninth Amendment that discussed the "unenumerated rights". That is what Roe v Wade is based on. His exclusion of the Ninth Amendment from that list is deliberate and telling.

[shanti]

11. forget that - he WILL talk about it!

the dems better make him! :grr:

[Dhalgren]

14. If Roberts is actually telling the truth and really does hold that

the right to privacy is basic to the constitution and will be respectful of precedent, then that is as much as we can ever hope for from a conservative judge. If he is lying (he was, after all nominated by Bush), then we will all be getting fucked in the next few years, even worse than we have in the last five (and not in the good way)...

[Broken_Hero]

48. Ditto, and Ditto...

[TrogL]

15. Wouldn't it be totally ironic...

...if this spooked the fundies and THEY voted down Roberts?

[marshall]

25. I thought that was what was going on.

It's the only viable step.

[truthpusher]

16. Roberts: Roe V. Wade 'Entitled to Respect'

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/13/D8CJFQJG2.html

Roberts: Roe V. Wade 'Entitled to Respect'
Sep 13 12:24 PM US/Eastern


By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON


Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was "settled as a precedent." He declined to answer specific questions about abortion and voting rights, citing cases he could face on the high court.

The heart of the abortion ruling is "settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis," the concept that long-established rulings should be given extra weight, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee on the second day of his confirmation hearings.

Still, review and revisions have been the hallmark of the high court on issues from integration to gay rights, and Roberts indicated that groundbreaking cases can draw a second look.

"If particular precedents have proven to be unworkable, they don't lead to predictable results, they're difficult to apply, that's one factor supporting reconsideration," Roberts said.

(snip)

"It reaffirmed the central holding in Roe v. Wade," Roberts said.

Roberts answered questions about abortion through the prism of legal precedent but declined to answer specifically how he would rule if faced with the question of overturning Roe v. Wade.

(snip)

[Robert Oak]

17. damn he's slick

I have no idea what he really means with whether he's going to overturn it or not.

[grahamhgreen]

21. Then it means he will try to overturn it...

[zbdent]

23. So, avoiding answering questions "citing cases he could face on the high

court" - that means that, using this logic, he would not be able to answer ANY QUESTIONS AT ALL.

If this flies, and the Dems get a chance to put someone on the Supreme Court (ever again), they should cite precedent: 2005, Roberts inquiry: "I cannot answer questions about cases I could face on the high court; in other words, lacking precognitive ability, I don't know what cases I may be facing, so I cannot answer any questions. Thank you, and confirm me."

[truthpusher]

18. Roberts: Roe V. Wade 'Entitled to Respect'

This thread has been combined with another thread.

Click here to read this message in its new location.

[insane_cratic_gal]

19. Can you see the road to Anarchy?

The Supreme Court has been returned to 1950 thinking. As a woman, there isn't another hot button issue then the one most threatened by these fanatical conservatives. Whether you agree or not with a woman's reproductive rights, you must understand on some level eroding this right, is just steps away from eroding others. Once the slippery slope is breached, there is no climbing up from it.


Scary how our country is converting slowly back into Puritan behavior. When England and Europe is more liberal then "democracy" of America, it's a bit frightening. I'm seriously starting to wonder if I should consider a move out of the USA. It is starting to become a country I no longer recognize.

The elections are Hijacked, Dobson and focus on family is a legit lobbying group (only 1 of 1,000s).. Fanatical conservative party has hijacked the republican party, in return the corporate republican party has hijacked the Democratic party(DLC). I have no faith in the decency of politicians. I'd be willing to bet decency is there beneath the surface of that 1,000 dollar suit, but I trust them only to serve that which is best for itself.

I fear it will only grow worse, as nations continue to ignore or panic about the looming energy crisis. Yet, natural gas companies continue to advertise their warm fuzzy commercials meant to appease a selfish population of people and greedy oil companies who milk every last cent they possibly can. We might of ended our dependence upon oil a decade ago, perhaps 2, if it were not for the constant interference of government and corporations. We could of produced clean energy through solar and wind power. We could of improved the lives of 3rd world countries. The air a little cleaner for our children and grandchildren.

The longer I look at these issues now facing this country, I see only anarchy waiting in the midsts. Rebellion waiting in the shadows, growing with every passing failure. How many more years can we sustain the boiling point this country has reached? Is it me? Or does it slowly grow worse. Or is this country not standing on the cliff? All I can see is the slow decent down.

Mostly, I see Rome, I am reminded of how the mighty fall.

[Megahurtz]

28. I feel just as you do. n/t

[Goldensilence]

31. i see it

and i'm willing to help us point the way...if it comes to that.

[emrenz]

32. Anarchy....or an Independent

My wife feels like you do. She says a rebellion is in our future. I feel (and hope) we'll see the emergence of an extraordinary independent candidate that will cut through the bullshit and deal with those things we know to be real problems, corporate control of the political system, health care, ecology, reliance on fossil fuels,and man's inhumanity to man as seen all over the world.

[iamjoy]

34. It Isn't Just Abortion

that is evidence of our country returning to Puritan behavior. An appeals court upheld an Alabama ban on sex toys citing "no right to privacy."

I can understand, but disagree with people who think life begins at conception and therefore abortion should be illegal. We can debate whether that should be covered as part of a right to privacy.

I sort of understand their concerns about adultry and promiscuity.

But for the life of me, I cannot understand why some people get all unglued at the idea of faithful married couples enhancing the physical aspect of their relationship. Where does it say in the bible "thou shalt not use..." (I better leave it out so the mods don't tombstone me)

I think as for the road to anarchy, it will get worse before it gets better. We will just go to a 1950's mentality, but possibly even Victorian. While most women's rights will not be directly overturned, every government power to enforce violations will be eliminated.

And then, there will be a revolution, of sorts and the pendulum will swing the other way.

[Greylyn58]

36. Too true

Reminds me of the ending narration from the movie "Fall of the Roman Empire"

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."
---The Narrator, in The Fall of the Roman Empire

[Blue_Tires]

38. off topic

but man, that dog has a big nose!

[Greylyn58]

43. ?????

He's a Golden Retriever and 8 months old in that picture. How big should his nose be?

[Blue_Tires]

49. i'm just playing

it is a very beautiful animal

[Voltaire99]

60. Nice post. Here's one alternative.

Anarchy is one possibility, one to be dreaded. New Orleans is its spectre. So is Iraq. We should bear in mind these cautionary tales; those who own America do not quibble about mass murder.

Now, I am no seer, and further when it comes to hopefulness, I can make Thomas Hobbes look like Walt Disney.

But if--no small if--society can survive the coming energy, political, and military crises, there's a chance of hanging on to a measure of the America we used to know.

What we want to further or simply preserve--pluralism, difference, social and economic justice--is the opposite to what is wanted by those in power and their followers in the herd. While our blood boils over the direction of society, theirs does not.

I would start by abandoning any hope of a return to mid-20th century American liberal culture, that oasis of sanity in a very dismal national history. Its memory defiled and its institutions dismantled, liberalism is like the bodies washing up in the Lower Ninth Ward (although emergency socialism, a la FDR, remains a possibility). Wan substitutes like Clintonism are probably no longer possible, culturally or economically, either. In national elections, the choice is between Bush and Bush-lite.

So I expect both a new political reckoning and new migratory patterns in America. Those wishing a measure of control over their lives outside of the radical corporate-Christian norm being established will have to move, live in progressive cities and towns and form new ones--carve out, that is, cultural outposts.

Living in a Bantustan is hardly an enviable choice. But it will be a choice passionately made as the tipping point is reached. I, for one, don't wish to live in nor help sustain a community where Intelligent Design is taught, the taste for war is a brutish civic pride, gays and lesbians are hounded from home and work, or pregnant women seeking abortions are sent away or channeled into Christian livestock programs ("adoption").

No, we may no longer recognize the larger society, enthralled as it will be to a scheme of profit and ritualized religious punishment--Wal-Martism and Talibanism hand-in-hand. For years every bone in my body said "Fight against this," and I will always despise it, but I am finally a reluctant realist. You can only fight for a people who want progress. America is not France before the Revolution; nor even America before its own. When great millions of people want to regress to the lash of Puritanism and don't care how many their ecstacies of war and worship kill, the wise don't stick around to offer them HBO.

So that's one way of living with Bushism: join and empower local enclaves where a recognizable America can be sustained. Gather among people of like minds. It is no panacea. The working poor, obviously, have no mobility of any sort--not even to survive drowning. So I am not endorsing this, again, as a model to replace decent national governance. It may simply be what is left and those capable of chosing it will be relatively lucky.

[Phlem]

20. Sigh ***

It's the silver tongued party that sway ignorants or lazy minded people.

We're a country overworked and under payed, who's going to take the time to do any research on a candidate or issue.

It's easier, for the people to to "just believe and have faith".

I'm surrounded by repubs in my family.

They take false reporting to levels that astound and make it really easy for you to digest.

I hate where this country is at but I'm even more dismayed that there's still 38% of the public (or whatever that number is right now) that believe shrub is doing the right thing.

F@#K!!!!!


Phlem

[Robert Oak]

22. faith w/o works is dead

These corporate jesus worshippers need some bible quotes
that spell out being hoodwinked is not being a good Christian.

[nolabels]

24. Ah, but you see they have twisted it

They say do the work for the faithful (Pat Robertson and the ilk)even thought the work might be harmful for the faith (or anyone else). These people, the followers, take these orders from others who practice fornication even before belief. These followers accept this for the simple reasoning that fornicators say they are in frequent contact with (this) god himself. This is cult, carry your own lantern if you fear the darkness

[insanity]

26. Of course

This is the reason John Roberts was nominated, he knows he can't rule against abortion; to do that would be a dagger in the GOPs heart. The GOP uses Roe v Wade as a rally call for the conservative christian vote, without abortion, Bush might not have been elected in the first place (even dishonestly).

[jzodda]

27. He believes in the right to privacy

Thats very, very good news in general. Reading into that may mean he will be very moderate on a whole host of social issues.

[HillDem]

29. Maybe

he will be another Anthony Kennedy?

[FourStarDemocrat]

35. Time will tell...that's all I have to say.

I've listened to several hours of the hearings today, and Roberts seems to be conciously trying to come off as NOT Bork. Who knows, I've grown weary of the lies of those surrounding the Bush administration. Roberts will be confirmed as is the intention of the majority of senators, and we'll just have to wait and see.

I attended the Souter hearings (the first day of them) back in the day as a pro-choice activist. We were extremly worried that this obscure judge would overturn Roe v Wade and go on to do many more dastardly things, and thank God he did not. I have a little less hope now, because I know that the Chimp is even more in the pocket of the right wing conservatives than his father was (and his father definitely was) but even if Roberts is lying very well, he comes across as seeing the need for judges to separate themselves from the executive branch that they were once affiliated with (in his frequent citings of Judge Jackson). That, alsong with his recognition of privacy in the constitution is frankly as much as we can hope for at this point.

[anitar1]

45. I have learned to never think that Bush cabal would

choose an honorable person for any office. They are too evil and draw the evil ones to them. Some have left because they could not walk the Bush walk, in spite of the money. edit spelling

[Catt03]

37. Watching this is sickening

All men questioning another man about what to do with a woman's body.
Privacy means nothing more than "should she or shouldn't she". I can't wait until privacy is completely dismantled and hope the women who voted
to put these ignorant people in office are impregnated at least 10 times.

Assholes.

And.....all male talking heads on cable giving their clever analysis.

Assholes

[Planterz]

40. Media won't give a hand

I'd say most people who show up on a television as a talking head are just soulless wastes. At best, well-paid culture hookers. Feh.





...Embry McNeil?

[420inTN]

39. Re: "legal precedent is a 'very important consideration.'"

Yeah, legal precedent such as the overturning of Plessy vs. Ferguson?

[UrbScotty]

42. Sounds like a flip-flop. (nt)

[PaDem]

46. Bottom line is........

Roe V Wade will not be overturned by the supreme court regardless of it's makeup and the judicial philosophy of it's justices.

[robbedvoter]

47. Remember Ashcroft's confirmation? he sounded almost OK too!

And wasn't for life neither!

[daleo]

50. When a conservative says something is entitled to respect

They only mean that in a very theoretical way. In reality it means they will politely ignore it, or in this case set it aside.

[ladylibertee]

52. I watched and listened to his answers to both sides and it is obvious ....

what he believes and how he would stand if and when these issues comes before the Supreme Court.I even suspect he will find some manipulative method in which he can suggest a case come before the court just so he could have a stab at overruling civil rights.I may be going a little extreme on that. I know It is highly unlikely.I will say that as a young person in this country, as a woman and as a person of color, I am FRIGHTENED.

[CTyankee]

53. you should be frightened

Let's face it: these scums would not have nominated Roberts if they weren't SURE he was going to vote their way. He will vote to gut Roe even further or get it completely overturned. Bet money on it.

[txaslftist]

54. You're wrong. He would never vote to overturn ROE.

Roe v. Wade was about the best thing to happen to the Republicans since LBJ. (LBJ was great for them because he split southern democrats away from the rest of the democrats by supporting desegregation. Now all those southern bigots vote republican)

Abortion is a wedge issue among democrats. Anti-choice religious poor vote republican. As long as Roe v. Wade is law (and it will be, forever) the Republicans can trot it out each election cycle and say, "I'm prolife, the other guy is pro abortion". Thus a portion of the Democratic base (the rural poor) vote Republican on just this one issue.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, the states would individually have to face the issue of abortion and would not necessarily go along party lines. Economic factors such as the fact that the Republicans are essentially the party of big bidness would then come into play and the poor would start voting their economic interests again.

The Republican NEED Roe v. Wade to remain law, even though they lament it. It is a bogeyman they can trot out every election cycle to split democrats up. They need Roe v. Wade to remain law just like they need Osama Bin Ladin to remain uncaptured. He's another bogeyman they can trot out and say "We're not safe, he's still out there, the democrats won't protect you, blah blah blah...."

Bush is not going to appoint anyone who will overturn Roe.

Think this one through. The Republican Party Leadership does NOT want Roe overturned.

[CAcyclist]

57. I Don't Buy That Line Of Thinking

Of course they will overturn it if they can. There's always some other ruling they can then turn their attention to, like overturning Brown vs Board of Education.(edited for grammar)

[CTyankee]

58. Yeah, I know this argument and it has merit

so I can see how the part of the RW that is not virulently anti choice would NOT want Roe overturned. However, what troubles me is that the RW fundie religionists are determined on "no more Souters." THAT is where I was coming from with my statement.

Of course, Bush can pull a fast one on them like he does with everybody else and of course what does he care. I would like to believe that your theory is correct, that taking away a constitutional right of half of the population of this country would just not be done (for whatever reason, good or bad).

But, sorry. I've had a lot of my confidence shattered lately in rationality and the Republican Party. Your theory makes sense. But what this administration has done and is doing now, Katrina, Fema, Iraq, is so irrational I am beginning to wonder. Do they just welcome the end of the world so Jesus can rule and the believers will be saved and the infidels will be left behind or damned to hell? People like that scare me. And people like that IN CHARGE of our government terrify me.

[CAcyclist]

55. He's Actually Saying That Roe Is Vulnerable

I need to get my book Courting Disaster from home (I'm at work) so some of these details may not be perfect, but the gist of what I understand is that:

Roe v Wade "right to privacy" comes from the "unenumerated rights" contained in Amendment NINE.

Roberts specifically stated the amendments that he believes confer the right to privacy on citizens. Prominently missing is the ninth amendment on that list.

Therefore, I infer his position to be that Roe v Wade was decided based on a misreading of the Ninth Amendment, and thus can be over-turned.