Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
You clearly know a good deal more about this than I do. But I wonder--was I wrong to be concerned, for instance, when Samuel Alito and John Roberts were more than willing to comment on the merits of, say, Brown v. Board of Education, on the basis of "that's settled law"--and then refused to answer questions abour Roe v. Wade or Casey because these are "issues that might come before the court"? I found that worrisome--but I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know how worrisome that should be.
|
I didn't watch the Alito hearings, but didn't Roberts say Roe was settled law?
I thought I remembered him saying that, but maybe I'm wrong.
Edit:
From a CNN article:
Arguing a case for the first Bush administration in 1990 when he was deputy solicitor general, Roberts said Roe v. Wade "was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
In his 2003 confirmation hearing, however, he told senators he was acting as an advocate for his client, rather than presenting his own positions.
He told senators Roe was "the settled law of the land" and said "there's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."