 |
| Larger/Smaller Text |
|
|
||||
Bush Administration Admits That Roberts "Settled Law" Statement Is MeaninglessWashington, DC – NARAL Pro-Choice America, the leading nationwide advocate for personal privacy and a woman’s right to choose, called today for senators to pay close attention to the admission by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that there is no relevance to Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ 2003 statement that he would apply Roe v. Wade as settled law. In an interview with the Associated Press, Gonzales said that, "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." In response, NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan said: "We’re not used to this kind of candor from the Bush Administration, but after admitting they lied about Roberts’ membership in the hard right Federalist Society, they are coming clean on how meaningless his evasive 2003 testimony was. It’s now even clearer than before that the far-right activists who’ve been turning handsprings in celebration of Roberts’ nomination are getting exactly what they wanted – a proven activist opponent of personal freedoms like a woman’s right to choose." Yesterday, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a report titled "That’s What They All Say" demonstrating the way in which Roberts’ testimony during his 2003 confirmation hearings was a standard talking point for anti-choice Bush judicial nominees. That report is attached.
That’s What They All Say John Roberts’ statements when he was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit provide no assurance that he would uphold Roe v. Wade as a Supreme Court Justice. In fact, he was simply stating what all circuit court nominees state – that if confirmed they would be required to comply with Supreme Court precedent. Supreme Court Justices are not subject to that requirement; as Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Chief Justice Rehnquist have demonstrated, they are free to advocate for Roe to be overturned. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales explains: "When you’re a circuit court judge like Judge Roberts is today, you must respect and adhere to precedent of the Supreme Court. Once you become a Supreme Court justice, that is not necessarily so." Several of President Bush’s anti-choice circuit court nominees provided answers very similar to Roberts’ when asked about Roe. What John Roberts Told the U.S. Senate "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. It is not – it's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it's the settled law of the land. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey." What Other George W. Bush Nominees Told the U.S. Senate Claude Allen: ▪ "The Constitution encompasses a right to privacy as interpreted by numerous Supreme Court decisions including, but not limited to, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, and Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania. If confirmed, I would apply these decisions faithfully." Priscilla Owen: ▪ "I do believe that I can apply Casey and Akron and other decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, I believe faithfully." ▪ "My position is that Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for many, many years, now as modified by Casey. And none of my personal beliefs would get in the way of me applying that law or any other law." ▪ "[The constitutional right to privacy is] the law of the land, and there’s nothing in my personal beliefs at all that would keep me from understanding and applying that law." ▪ "I can assure you that none of my personal views on any topic has influenced or would influence my ability to read the U.S. Supreme Court precedent and to apply it." [In response to a question about Griswold v. Connecticut.] Lavenski Smith: ▪ "If confirmed, I would faithfully follow the precedent established in Casey, just as I would follow the binding precedent of all other Supreme Court cases." ▪ "The U.S. Supreme Court, in a line of cases beginning with Griswold v. Connecticut, recognized a constitutional right of privacy. The Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that in succeeding cases. . . . If confirmed, I will follow these and any other applicable precedents according to the established principles of stare decisis." ▪ "My solemn and sworn responsibility as a circuit judge, if confirmed, will be to uphold and apply [Roe v. Wade] and all other precedents of the Supreme Court." ▪ "Well, as I understand the current precedence of U.S. Supreme Court, Roe and those cases decided subsequent to it are the law of the land, and it would be my obligation, and I would assume that obligation fully, to apply that law and enforce it." Miguel Estrada: ▪ "[Roe] is the law as it has subsequently refined by the Casey case. And I will follow it." ▪ "I do not harbor any personal views of any kind that, if I were a judge, would preclude me from applying controlling Supreme Court case law in the area of abortion." ▪ Senator Feinstein: "So you believe [Roe] is settled law?" Estrada: "I believe so." Carolyn Kuhl: ▪ "Casey is the law of the land. It strongly reaffirms the right, the constitutional right to women’s reproductive freedom, and I would apply that precedent fully and completely." ▪ "The precedent established by [Roe and Casey] is firmly settled. I am fully committed to following these precedents and would fairly and properly apply the law established by those cases." Contact: |
||||
Choice Action Center | Issues | News | About Us | Support Us | © Copyright 2009 NARAL Pro-Choice America® & NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation®. All rights reserved. |
