Gonzales: Roberts Not Bound by Statement

[SillyGoose]

WASHINGTON (AP) - If confirmed to the Supreme Court, John Roberts would not be bound by his past statement that the 1973 decision legalizing abortion is settled law, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday.

Roberts testified before Congress in 2003 that he considers the Roe v. Wade decision "settled law." At the time, he had been nominated for the seat he now holds on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

But Gonzales, in an interview with The Associated Press, said circumstances had changed. "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," Gonzales said.

"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," Gonzales said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050726/D8BJ7I2O1.html
(more at link)

[ibegurpard]

1. Well, duh

What I find surprising are the people stupid enough to believe that him saying anything like that means we have nothing to fear from him.

[IChing]

2. Thanks Gonzales, for at least saying this in Public

Which most of us knew, but now there is no illusion to the fact
He can rule against Women's reproductive rights

[Kber]

5. Gonzales has been saying a lot in public lately

Wonder just how pissed he really is and not getting the nomination himself?

[sonicx]

3. RWers are the ones using the 'settled law' meme

and they know good and well that they're lying.

[David Zephyr]

4. Gonzales said this to placate the rightwing who had opposed him for SCOTUS

in hopes of having a second chance.

[depakid]

7. Pretty much-

And ciruit court justices do not always follow what many or most consider to be "settled law." They risk getting reversed, of course, but there's no particular obligation for them to apply decision rules or essential reasoning in a fair or an honest way in order to reach the same result as the Supreme Court presumably would.

[CityDem]

14. Bingo

Alberto needs to strengthen his conservative credentials before Rehnquist steps down.

[The Night Owl]

6. LOL! Gonzales is either really stupid or really angry.

[opusprime]

AG: High Court Not Bound by Roe V. Wade

Sorry if this is a dupe.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050726/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gonzales_ap_interview_5

WASHINGTON - 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.

On other subjects in a wide-ranging interview with AP editors and reporters, Gonzales:

• Declined to answer questions about his decision while White House counsel to delay notifying most White House staff about a Justice Department investigation into the leak of a covert
CIA officer's identity.

<snip>

[still_one]

8. should anyone really be surprised?

The morans in this country who voted for bush or didn't even bother to vote, knew he was a snake. Now they are bitten, and they express surprise?

[0rganism]

9. Finally, someone in the bush administration speaks the truth

A rare occassion. I do believe this calls for a glass of champagne.

[Voltaire99]

10. True enough. But so what?

The Supreme Court follows or abandons precedent according to whim.

Understanding how capricious are these arbiters of our very freedoms tends to take away much of their august mystique; theirs is a very political, arbitrary and idiosyncratic process, owing as much to philosophical temperament as to any supposed legal reasoning.

Roe v. Wade, in its social effects one of the best and more decent decisions in the court's history, is, with its famous "penumbras," a decision completely pulled out of the late great Blackmun's ass. Proving one thing: you want the right asses seated on the court. ;-)

And that's so hard to select for that we should dispose of the pretenses involved in America's periodic appointment dance and instead very carefully question, approve or disapprove those who share our values and specific positions.

"Moderates," for instance, can hardly be depended upon. Conservative justices have wreaked havoc upon our society since the era of the last sane court--obviously, the Warren Court--but very recently, it has been the supposedly "liberal" justices who have handed down utterly wretched decisions (i.e., approving broad powers of eminent domain, and circumscribing medical marijuana). See "The Supreme Court's Jackboot Liberals" by Alexander Cockburn, at http://counterpunch.com/cockburn06252005.html

[Moderator]

11. Kick

[WhiteTara]

12. I hope Feinstein takes note

and doesn't do us in with her support of this slithering slime oozing through the halls of justice.

[blonndee]

13. Fuck Gonzales. He loves torture and apparently loves to control

women. Anything he says, it don't mean a DAMN thing. Are we surprised?

[lavenderdiva]

15. AG: High Court Not Bound by Roe V. Wade

link:
http://neworleans.cox.net/cci/newsnational/national?_mode=view&_state=maximized&view=article&id=D8BJP9LO4


snip:

Talking about the landmark court decision legalizing abortion, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said a Supreme Court justice does not have to follow a previous ruling "if you believe it's wrong."

In an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday, Gonzales said the legal right to abortion is settled for lower courts but not the Supreme Court, suggesting high-court nominee John Roberts would not be bound by his past statement that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision settled the issue.

snip:

Gonzales said circumstances had changed since Roberts commented on Roe v. Wade during his 2003 confirmation hearing for the seat he now holds on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

"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," Gonzales said.

"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," Gonzales said.

[cascadiance]

16. So AG, what about Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad...

Many legal scholars also believe the head note derived from that case that has made corporate personhood a legal precedent was also *wrong* but is something that lower courts won't touch because they were bound by "precedent" there. Now the supremes could overrule that head note and say it was "wrong" too. Why don't they? Rehnquist in the 70's had the court "punt" and not rule at all on such a case that was asked to use this case history, because he knew it was "wrong".

So, AG, should Roberts also be prepared to overrule Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, in the same fashion you're saying he should be allowed to help overturn Roe vs. Wade? Or should he let his biased opinion not have him be a strict "constructionist" for ALL cases coming in front of him and only ones that his biases would have him a certain way.

I'm sure that given Roberts' history of supporting corporations every place, he wouldn't overrule this if he wasn't bound by "constructionist" principle, but let's be clear on whether his overturning Roe vs. Wade would be based solely on "constructionist" principles (which would also require overturning Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific) or personal preference, which would allow him to overturn one and not the other.

If it is personal preference, then members of congress should have that noted for them to base their decisions on whether to approve him or not, not a false premise that he is a strict "constructionist" if in fact he can be shown not to be such.

[Endangered Specie]

17. I guess Gonzales would know a thing or two about 'bounding' someone

:sarcasm:

[Vickers]

18. So, Alberto, you're saying he's an activist judge? Legislating from

the bench and all that? :eyes: