Supreme Court nominee John Roberts on Tuesday said the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, which brought abortion to the United States, was settled precedent. He also re-iterated and emphasized statements made on Monday regarding the role of prior Supreme Court rulings.
"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.
Roberts also noted that the Supreme Court itself upheld the basics of Roe v. Wade in a 1992 case, Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
It appears that Roberts' statements were made after being pressed by Sen. Alrene Specter on whether the abortion ruling was settled law. Roberts responded, "Well, beyond that, it's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not."
"I think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overturn precedent," Roberts said. "It is not enough that you may think that a prior decision was wrongly decided."
It would probably be beneficial to read the full transcript of the exchange leading to Roberts' statements (update - Parableman confirms the press is not providing an accurate interpretation of Roberts' statements). Yet, news reports suggesting that he agrees that precedent settles abortion are discouraging (to say the least). In addition, when questioned about his faith, the nominee asserted, "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."
Update:
Interestingly, further news reports indicate Roberts declined to comment on Roe v. Wade beyond the principle of stare decisis and stated in "rare" cases prior precedent could be overturned. A lawyer quoted by Confirm them calls Roberts' remarks "carefully framed to provide a basis for revisiting and overturning Roe in the future" (HT: Christian Coalition Blog).
The Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the conservative National Clergy Council, was present in the US Senate Hart Building hearing room today when Supreme Court chief justice nominee John Roberts was grilled by Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter on Roe v. Wade.
Rev. Schenck released this statement this morning:
"After an initial round of questions on Roe, one of the most difficult issues that John Roberts will face during his confirmation process, it would appear that he is being in the words of Christ, 'as wise as a serpent, yet harmless as a dove.' There remain many more questions and answers, but I like what I see so far and I'm sure millions of others do as well."
Update:
Jeremy provides a very informative post regarding these issues at Parableman. While a few sentences are quoted below, I suggest you read his entire article.
Contrary to the view of Justice Thomas (that I endorse), [Roberts] considers precedent to be a prima facie consideration that needs to be respected. Other issues may outweigh or trump that respect, but it's a respect that needs to be consideed. I'm philosophically opposed to that very notion, because the fact that some judge wrongly decided a case does not give us any reason to continue to enact a wrongly decided decision. It's the very reason why a judge should overturn it. Still, this is the standard view among most judges, including all eight other justices of the most recent lineup of the Supreme Court.Read the rest here.[snip]
... [Roberts] quite clearly stated that holding a precedent with respect according to stare decisis does not in any way mean that it can't be overturned, just that there needs to be higher justification than there would be with a law that hasn't been upheld by a court precedent.
LifeNews provides a report that indicates Roberts' statements actually provide the basis for overturning Roe v. Wade.
I should add that Roberts said exactly what I would expect from someone who hopes to overturn Roe v. Wade at some point. His facial expressions as he's interected with Dianne Feinstein in the last 20 minutes or so make it pretty clear that he disagrees with Ginsburg's statements on abortion in her published work and during her hearing. He refrained from commenting, but it was pretty clear that he thought it was funny that anyone might interpret his words as requiring anything like what she was saying.