Slate article suggests Roberts may have hedged on overturning Roe

[Jersey Devil]

"Specifically, we need to decide how much weight to give legal claims, including the infamous footnote in a brief he wrote in the 1991 gag-rule case Rust v. Sullivan, suggesting that Roe v. Wade was "wrongly decided and should be overturned."

In general, I tend to agree with Roberts, who—in consummate lawyerly fashion—has defended his footnote with a subsequent footnote, in a 1994 law review article. There Roberts said that "(the author's) views as a commentator … do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States." If every lawyer were held to defend every appalling statement she makes on behalf of a client, the profession would be a mass of schizophrenic head-cases. Lawyers argue for clients, not themselves, and lawyers' views evolve over time. Roberts noted in his last confirmation hearing that Roe is still the law of the land. That statement should not be dismissed lightly.

But there is still something creepy about the zealousness of that Roberts footnote. His call to go so far as to overturn Roe leaps beyond the question in the case and well into the realm of ideological advocacy."

more - http://slate.msn.com/id/2123131/entry/2123219/

[Mike Nelson]

1. Roberts' footnote seems way uncalled for, unless...

...he foresaw his Supreme Court appointment! DO NOT TRUST THIS GUY!

[HockeyMom]

2. As a former Catholic,

I cannot trust him. I have seen too much.

[Jersey Devil]

5. You can never be a "former" Catholic unless excommunicated

You can, however, be a "recovering" Catholic, like me. :-)

[Walt Starr]

7. How about an "Almost Catholic"?

I was baptised, but never went through catechism.

I would ask to be excommunicated, but I was never communicated in the first place.

:shrug:

[HockeyMom]

9. Would prefer to say,

excommunicated myself.

[converted_democrat]

3. I don't trust him at all, nor do I believe that he will leave Roe vs. Wade

alone. His wife is the VP of a pro-life group. I just don't trust him.

[Jersey Devil]

4. Well, I am looking for a ray of hope here

Frankly I think he will be approved rather easily. I was somewhat gladdened to at least see something to indicate there may be just the slight chance of a miracle.

[converted_democrat]

6. We could win it would be tough, but we could win.

I think it would be hard, but I think it could be done.

The "fight" for Roberts won't really "start" for 5 another five weeks due to congressional break. If we could draw out the progress just another 4 weeks on top of that for a total of 9-10 weeks from now, it would coordinate wonderfully with the end of the grand jury session. Indictments from "treason gate" could come as early as tomorrow, but chances are they won't be here till October, when the Grand Jury session is over, about 9-10 weeks from now. If we could stall off until then, we could be looking at a whole new political climate. No "American" would allow Bush to have his SC pick, if he is involved and indicted in "treason gate." Hell, even if it's "only" Rove that's indicted we could still be looking at the "momentum" we need politically to swing things our way. If we could just stall off until indictments are handed down, we could get momentum back on our side to get what we want.

P.S. All we would need to stall is one Senator to step forward on Roberts like Boxer did on Bolton. If we could get one Senator to place a "hold" on him we would have the time we need. I think that any spot that is appointed by the president is subject to the "hold" if we could just get someone to step forward and use it.

[Jersey Devil]

8. Ah, the "perfect storm"

You very definitely fit into the definition of "optimist".