home

Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Follow Roe v. Wade

By Jeralyn, Section John Roberts
Posted on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 03:50:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In a new interview with the Associated Press, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that once Judge John Roberts becomes a Supreme Court Justice, he is no longer obligated to follow precedent like Roe v. Wade...in other words, unlike an Appeals Court Judge who is bound by Supreme Court precedent, as a high court Justice, if he disagrees with it, he could vote to overturn it.

The legal right to abortion is settled for lower courts, but the Supreme Court ``is not obliged to follow'' the Roe v. Wade precedent, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday as the Senate prepared to consider John Roberts' appointment that would put a new vote on the high court.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Gonzales said a justice does not have to follow a previous ruling ``if you believe it's wrong,'' a comment suggesting Roberts would not be bound by his past statement that the 1973 decision settled the issue.

Excerpts from the interview:

  • On abortion: "If you're asking a circuit court judge, like Judge Roberts was asked, yes, it is settled law because you're bound by the precedent. If you're a Supreme Court justice, that's a different question because a Supreme Court justice is not obliged to follow precedent if you believe it's wrong."
  • On not releasing memos written while John Roberts was principal deputy solicitor general: "The release of these internal memos, which are extremely deliberative, would chill communication and opinion giving and advice between line attorneys within the SG's office and their superiors, and I think that would be harmful to this country."
< Elizabeth Smart's Kidnapper Ruled Incompetent | Frist Cancels Spending Bill Hearing With Anti-Torture Provision >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Follow Roe v. Wade | 14 comments (14 topical)
    Re: Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Fo (none / 0) (#1)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    If you're a Supreme Court justice, that's a different question because a Supreme Court justice is not obliged to follow precedent if you believe it's wrong.
    This isn't a surprise to anyone, is it? Of course a Supreme Court justice can find differently if he or she believes a previous ruling was not decided correctly. That's not news.

    Re: Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Fo (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Oh, Supreme. Now I get it.

    Re: Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Fo (none / 0) (#3)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    You can't possibly be in favor of unlimited Stare Decisis. Plessy vs. Ferguson comes to mind as a simple counter-example This all goes down to something very simple - who's ox is being gored. You like settled law that you agree with, ypou dislike settled law that you disagree with. When you have an actual argument, let me know.

    Re: Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Fo (none / 0) (#4)
    by wishful on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    What's up with Gonzales lately? First he tips his hand in an unambiguous public quote that the Whitehouse had at least a 12 hour heads up to destroy documents in the Plame investigation, now he is presenting a useful reminder by issuing yet another quote for Democrats to employ in anti-Roberts PR efforts. Maybe he was recently visited by the ghost of Christmases future or something.

    Re: Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Fo (none / 0) (#6)
    by fafnir on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Perhaps this is an obvious distinction to law professionals, but it is a surprising revelation to a lay person like me. TorcherBoy's words could return to haunt Roberts in a cleverly framed commercial.

    Re: Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Fo (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    I guess if the Supreme court were infallible then overturning previous rulings would be a bad thing. I mean if there wasn't merit in overturning previous decisions on occassion then the US would still have the Fugitive Slave Act and Jim Crow. The obsession of the Left on the Roe v Wade issue is too single minded to stop the Robert's confirmation. In the end if Roe v Wade were overturned it would be up to the states to decide the abortion issue as well it should be. In some states it would be legal and some possibly not but it would be decided by the people of that state, through legislation not the Federal Gov't, pardon me the unelected Supreme Court. The historic myopathy of the Left for short term gain is well....predictable as are all reactionary ideals. In politics hypocracy abounds. The arguement by those opposed to Robert's nomination to the Supreme Court because previous decisions are permanant is hypocritical. They are not. In an historical context the Left is advocating Jim Crow, the death penalty and the Fugitive Slave act all in one arguement.

    Re: Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Fo (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    In politics hypocracy abounds.
    Yes, as in lying about WMD to get into a war. Saying they're concerned about national security, but not funding it. Saying "we've turned the corner" on the economy, and it just gets worse. Saying "dead or alive", then later, "I'm just not that concerned" about Bin Laden.

    Yeah, you right-wingers should know all about hypocracy.

    Re: Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Fo (none / 0) (#9)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    The obsession of the Left on the Roe v Wade issue
    Whuzzat? Is it "the Left" that has all those pickets outside Planned Parenthood? Is it "the Left" that runs little shops of horrors like Focus on the Family? Is it "the Left" that keeps cranking out the bogus "research" that abortions cause cancer, divorce, and tooth decay?

    Re: Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Fo (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    No it is the Left that will use Roe v Wade to try thwart a Supreme court nominee. It is the Left who takes thier talking points from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. It is the Left who wants the Supreme court to create law by fiat not interpret the law constiutionally. I personally think abortion should be legal but it should be decided by individual states through legislation and not through some ridiculous interpretation of the constituion by the Supremes. As I said before if the courts were infallible....

    Re: Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Fo (none / 0) (#12)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Yes, "The Left" will ask a Supreme Court nominee's opinions on the rights of half of the country's citizens. Yes, "The Left" will take the advice of groups formed to protect those rights. Yes, "The Left" expects the Supreme Court to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment. Sounds like an unhealthy "obsession" to me. Are there any other rights of citizens you'd like to leave up to the legislatures of the states, jimcee? Or just this one?

    Re: Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Fo (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    It seems to me that congress pretty much determines whether or not abortion will remain legally protected by the supreme court not the SC keeping it legal. If congress will not vote for someone who is anti choice than congress is determining the issue. If that is the case, why doesn't congress stop this being a wedge issue in SC voting and make it a states right. I am prochoice 100%, but I cannot see voting against someone based on that issue alone and expect my senators to be more open minded as well.

    Re: Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Fo (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Contrary to many of my colleagues on the left, I wish abortion was a state right and not a federal one. What we would see is a dramatic shift from republicans in local elections to selective support for abortion instead of the moral outrage they express when no votes are reliant upon what is out of their control. When it is used as a litmus test in the nomination of SC appointments, it dramatically shifts attention from the myriad of other significant decisions that have a far greater impact on our society as a whole. The moral indignation surrounding abortion has vastly dissipated over the years (see george bush) and is a signature argument for the moral majority relative to the "sickness" of liberals. Currently, there are no political ramifications in the calling for abortion to be illegal despite nearly 2/3 of the nation believing that the law is correct despite its "immorality". How many state senators could survive running on an anti abortion ticket? My guess is that there are about 10 states where that might fly initially whittled down to 4-6 over time. it is only a wedge issue to me if the federal government removes the rights of states to sanction abortion based on its rulings.

    Re: Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Fo (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    It is the Left who takes thier(sp) talking points from NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
    And it is the Right who take their talking points from Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, O'Reilly, and the oh-so astute Ken Mehlman.

    I'll take my chances with the first group any day.

    Asking for any pres. nominee's tax records should cause no one to sweat. If it does, that's a red flag. Asking a Supreme Court nominee for his opinions on citizens rights is a no-brainer.

    Re: Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Fo (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    Posted by jimcee: "No it is the Left that will use Roe v Wade... a Supreme court nominee." Oh, you mean like the Bush maladministration did ALL LAST YEAR selling the candidate to rightwing groups? Thwarting or promoting, using RvW as a rubric to public freedoms, or their denial by rightists unconvinced of the secularity of the US Constitution, is just more of the Race to Divide America that is Genghiz Bush in a nutshell. And I do mean nutshell. Luckily, his nutshells are happily pulled up into their inward housing, on a month-long vacation while GIs sweat and other GIs bleed out on Arab sands. What a heroic Commandeer-in-Chief. He picks among the LEAST QUALIFIED nominees in the history of the High Court, and then you lot race in with your divisive talking points. Nevermind the incompetence and lack of experience. Let the raped women of America fight and die in another of Bush's Unconstitutional Wars, on backstreets and Juarez alleys like they used to do. While the rich Republican daughters jet off by the thousands to fancy clinics in the Bahamas. Born with a silver curette in their vaginas.

    Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Follow Roe v. Wade | 14 comments (14 topical)