...that Tim Kaine gets criticized by the right wing for saying he opposes abortion but will uphold the law, while John Roberts, who the right is certain is against abortion, can get away with saying that he would uphold Roe v. Wade?
And now he won't say why his name is on a list of Federalist members, when the white House and he protested so vigorously last week that he wasn't that leading newspapers printed retractions.
Roe v. Wade cannot be "overturned," but it can be "overruled." I think that's the distinction you're looking for, DABurgess.
As for the Federalist Society, I've been a member since '87, and started the chapter at Emory University School of Law. I find it easy to believe that Roberts wasn't a member, but was involved in some activities. Some of the people I've heard at Federalist Society events: former Clinton Acting SG Walter Dellinger; AFL-CIO lawyer James Coppess; Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt. Other assorted lefties have attended.
Posted by: James Young | July 27, 2005 at 05:15 PM
I'm not saying he's lying. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that he needs to tell the truth about his legal reasonings on the issue. Silence is not the truth. It's not like it's a hypothetical for him. He's been involved in abortion cases so he needs to ecxplain his reasoning. Saying my employer made me do it isn't enough.
Posted by: Bob | July 26, 2005 at 11:08 AM
Who says that John Roberts is lying? I think you're making some serious assumptions there.
Posted by: John Behan | July 26, 2005 at 10:58 AM
Yes, John, the difference is that if an elected official lies about his positions he can not be re-elected to any office once he term expires. The public has recourse. The judiciary can trump a chief executive's decision more so than the other way around. And in the case of a SC justice, there's no way of removing him for simply lying to the public.
Gee, I thought you guys in the justice system were all about truth. Maybe not.
Posted by: Bob | July 25, 2005 at 11:31 PM
John, from what I understand the actual Roe vs. Wade case cannot be “overturned”. Wouldn’t it require an entirely different case that involves abortion at some higher level? Meaning the court wouldn’t hear another Roe vs. Wade type case because the precedence is already established. Therefore, an abortion case that went beyond Roe vs. Wade would have to come to the court. Only then could the precedence of the higher (yet undetermined) case possibly trump Roe vs. Wade.
If so, this seems pointless and nonsense questioning Roberts on Roe vs. Wade.
Posted by: DABurgess | July 25, 2005 at 09:33 PM
Isn't it odd that some folks would think that there's no difference between a jurist and a candidate for chief executive of a state?
Posted by: John Behan | July 25, 2005 at 07:24 PM