Sonia Sottomayor told the world today that Roe vs. Wade is "settled law". This suggests that her mind is closed on the matter, even taking into consideration the likelihood that the noteworthy case had been decided incorrectly. She conveniently and consistently elevated judicial precedent to a sacrosanct place during the hearing today.
One cannot help but wonder what she would have done if she had been nominated to the Supreme Court in the year 1860. Would she have told the Senate at that time that the Dred Scott decision was "settled law"?
I noticed that contradiction too, Joe.
Liberals believe all activist decisions they have made in the past are "settled law" while ignoring all of the other "settled law" that they don't agree with.
If the "right to privacy" sufficient to guarnatee abortions was in the Constitution, why did it take nearly 200 years to figure that out?
Posted by: Spag | July 14, 2009 at 08:16 PM
Speaking of contradictions, can you and Sam remind us of your opposition to John Roberts?
"Well, beyond that. It's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes." -- John Roberts
Posted by: Roch101 | July 14, 2009 at 08:57 PM
While I claim no expertise in body language, I think she lied today. I would not buy a used car from her.
Posted by: Ken Hill | July 14, 2009 at 09:28 PM
Ken, I agree.
Sam, you make some great points.
Roch, I think there is a subtle, qualitative difference between what Roberts said, and what Sotomayor said. Roberts was acknowledging that Roe vs. Wade has the status of precedent, and that precedent must be respected and taken into account. In other parts of his testimony, I seem to remember he allowed for the fact that occasionally, precedent can be incorrect, and can be reversed. He did not go to the extent of calling Roe "settled law", implying that it is untouchable, as Sotomayor did.
Both Roberts and Alito had to verbalize for Senators their respect for precedent in order to get confirmed. Those were the unwritten ground rules under which they had to present themselves.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 14, 2009 at 09:46 PM
Come on Joe, don't go weenie on me. Although you keep putting "settled law" in quotes, Sotomayor doesn't say that verbatum. In fact, what she says is very nearly identical to what Roberts said. You can explain your, ahem, contradictions on your ability to divine that Roberts was lying while Sotomayor really means what she says if you want, but let us have enough respect for each other to be straight about the fact that they both said the same thing.
Posted by: Roch101 | July 14, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Roch, you are conflating things. We are talking about Sotomayor claiming one thing is settled law while at the same time acknowledging that other issues that have been reversed by the Supreme Court were also once considered settled law.
You should also go back and read Casey.
Posted by: Spag | July 14, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Roch, she expressed support with a certain degree of vehemence and certitude the legal underpinnings of Roe-- i.e., the so-called right to privacy-- in response to a question as to whether Roe is settled law. She gave no indication she felt otherwise. She did not express disagreement with the premise of the question put before her-- that Roe is settled law.
Her comments also must be viewed in the context of her other statements today which place precedent on a pedestal, as if we must bow before it.
Again, Roberts' statements are a shade different. If we had easy access to the video of these portions of his testimony, it could be seen. Roberts would have readily but carefully acknowledged that certain precedents that are wrongly decided can be overturned.
The Dred Scott decision is particularly useful here, because if the legal standard Sotomayor advocated today was used, then Dred Scott would have to be held up as a precedent we could not mess with. Of course, that is ridiculous, but that is essentially where her position leads.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 14, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Hypocrites.
Posted by: Roch101 | July 14, 2009 at 10:55 PM
That's your response, Roch? I'm sorry that you hoped we were making a point that we weren't. Work on your reading comprehension.
Posted by: Spag | July 15, 2009 at 09:54 AM
"Work on your reading comprehension."
Why bother, when he can just run his mouth about his unsupported assertions, and think it becomes settled at the end by calling those who have thoroughly refuted his point "hypocrites"?
It's standard operating procedure for those whose thinking process is fatally flawed by their worldview.
Posted by: Bubba | July 15, 2009 at 10:03 AM