Boy, that’s the truth. Republican presidents have been playing the pro-life crowd since Reagan. Bush has no reason to expend a lot of effort getting Roe V Wade overturned because he (and the GOP) gets the votes anyway; as the old saying goes, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
There’s a big difference between arguing a case, and deciding a case. A lawyer arguing a case is supposed to take sides. Their job is to win for their client, through whatever tricks of the trade they can find.
The judge is supposed to be fair and impartial. They should leave all preconceptions behind at the door.
To me, it doesn’t follow that knowing how to argue a case gives much insight into how to judge a case.
Yep. Bush would be nuts to send up another nominee before the vote count is in on Roberts. This is a test for the Dems. If they vote against him by a large margin, he’s going to say: “Nothing will satisify these guys, so I might as well go from broke next time. Let’s get Scalia’s twin ready for the confimation process.”
If I believed Bush gave a flip what satisfied the Dems I’d buy that notion. He’ll nominate who he pleases, for whatever reasons he pleases, and the Dems can go hang. It’s the people in his own party he’s worried about. Not all of them are anti-abortion zealots and probably worried about having to face an electorate turned Dem if Roe v. Wade gets overturned.
That said, I’m pretty sure Roberts will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. HIs wife is on the board of Operation Rescue and he’s too young to have given up on getting laid just yet. He’ll work HAAAARD for it. Yes, he will.
I doubt it. As I said in a previous thread, he’ll uphold Roe, but he will be willing to let stand any restrictions the legislature wants to put on abortion-- parental notification for minors, no “partial birth” abortions, no late term abortions, etc. But he will allow elective abortions in the first trimester to stand on the basis of stare decisis.
I’m willing to make a small wager (< $100) on that if anyone wants. Assuming he gets the opportunity to overturn *Roe *and outlaw **all **elective abortions, he will not do so.
Roberts’ wife also belongs to a group which opposes the death penalty, and in questioning, he appeared to be ambivalent about it. Shall we assume he will work HAAAARD to abolish it?
Phrased that way, you can’t lose that bet. Roberts could get the chance to overturn Roe, but I don’t see how he’d get a case that would provide an opportunity to outlaw elective abortion.
I freely admit that Roberts could be hiding his real feelings and that every word out of his mouth before the Senate could be a lie - only because at this stage there’s no way for me to know - but if he’s spoken honestly, he seems like a very good judge. He might actually be concerned with the law instead of advocating a particular viewpoint. Gasp.
Yeah, I worded that wrongly. I should have said overturn *Roe *and let the states decide whether or not all elective abortions should be made illegal.
I have no doubt that uphold a law that was constutionally valid even if he himself opposed that law passionately.
When he was first nominated, someone posted something that surprised me. Many of the Supreme Court Justices in the history of the court had NO EXPERIENCE as judges.
Posted by John Corrado