Priorities for a stronger America
Kimberly Clark just announced they will fire 6,000 workers. This move follows Hewlett Packard firing 14,5000 workers and Kodak firing 10,000 workers (which, the article states, could grow to 25,000 workers by 2007).
But, as my Republican friends believe, if we just confirm Judge Roberts, outlaw homosexuality and ban abortion, everything will be well with America. We must maintain our priorities, you know. "Oh, and by the way," says Bush. "Just let me, while we're making America strong, just give a few more tax breaks to the executives from these same corporations. You don't mind. 9/11 and all that."
posted by Mitchell J. Freedman @ 7:01 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
If he says he can't answer, just ask why he believes cases involving the legality of racial segregation laws will come before the court. It's settled, right? So, then, Judge Roberts, isn't Roe settled no differently than segregation such that there is no practical way he can foresee him overturning the right of a woman to have an abortion?
That's not a fair comparison. Nobody is bent on challenging Brown v Board. There aren't hundreds of organizations whose sole purpose is either to protect or overturn Brown v Board. Roberts, if he is confirmed, will almost certainly hear cases about abortion rights. Asking him how he would rule in such a case and voting on his confirmation according to his answer amounts to the Senate trying to fix the outcome of court decisions in advance.
David,
We're in the wrong post, but that's okay.
My point is precisely what you are saying, i.e. that one can say Roe is not settled.
My pitch is that Roberts had previously said, at the time of his nomination to the Circuit Court of Appeal, that Roe was "settled law." Does he still believe that as he is nominated to ascend to the US Supreme Court?
He then has a choice. He can say he continues to believe Roe is settled and, in a follow up, get him to agree that he sees no reason to overrule it any more than he would overrule Brown v. Bd. of Education (he could say that, one supposes!). However, he is more likely to say, as you do, that Roe is unsettled. Then, with that response, we will know that his likely vote is against it, based upon his strong solicitor general's office brief (one does not sign lightly such briefs as a leading lawyer) calling for the rejection and overruling of Roe--and his wife's strong PUBLIC anti-abortion advocacy.
I also think the "don't prejudge" argument only makes sense when one is dealing with variables in factual scenarios. Whether one believes there is a right to an abortion under the Constitution goes to overall philosophy no different than if one supports the right to privacy under Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).
Finally, let's assume you are completely correct that we should not ask him to pre-judge. That's when I ask, "Judge Roberts, have you ever expressed an opinion about the correctness of Roe, or its incorrectness, to anyone--outside of your wife in the privacy of your marriage?" If he spoke of his opinion of Roe, for example, to friends, doesn't the Senate have the same right to know those opinions? Why should "friends" be placed at a higher than the Senate, which is in charge of "advice and consent" to put him into a lifetime appointment at the US Supreme Court?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home