High Court Not Bound By Roe Vs. Wade
WASHINGTON - 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.
They're not even subtle anymore about laying the foundation for their schemes, are they?
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.
--snip--
Gonzales said he has a "preliminary judgment" about whether the Constitution affords the right to an abortion, but he declined to reveal it.
Three guesses, and the first two don't count.
More, including Gonzales stonewalling on the Rove debacle, in the article.
(Blue Cross-Post in the outlet by the light switch, who watches over you...)
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus