If court rulings settled the matter, Brown would never have existed, because of Plessy.

Without a federally protected right to privacy you will have no recourse if your city, county or state makes public your school, medical, bank, credit or work records for all to see.

Without a right to privacy you will have no recourse if your city, county or state outlaws liposuction, breast implants, braces, dentures, bikini waxing or mohawk haircuts.

The big problem for social conservatives isn't Roe, but rather Casey, which not only upholds Roe, but also sets forth a standard of stare decisis. Now, in order to overrule Roe, they also have to dump Casey's theory on stare decisis.

A lot of folks have missed how the ground has shifted because of Rehnquist's death. He's replacing Rehnquist, as reliable a vote social conservatives have ever had on the court. If Roberts turns out to be in favor of upholding Roe (I still think he'll vote to overrule), then the movement to get Roe overturned is dead, dead, dead.

I got a big chuckle out of the entire thing because it reminded me of the Iran gate hearings when Ollie North made them all look like the fools they are and Ollie never really answered a question that came up.

The dumb o crats in the Senate are following the obstructionist agenda they have followed since Bush 11 beat their pants off. (both times)

It is indeed sad when one thinks that these guys are making laws that effect you and I and have no sense of common decency, ethics, or morals.

You say "created," I say "recognized" ...

I haven't seen the transcript yet, so the following is merely provisional, but I'm disappointed by how SCOTUS CJ nominee John Roberts reportedly handled one issue:Judge Roberts testified, as he was pressed for his views on legalized abortion, that there

Boy are you ill-informed! She is a "self-declared feminist" in that she has been a leader in "Feminists for Life", a group characterized by its strong stand against Roe v. Wade!!

As for the "settled law" remarks. Can't you see that Roberts is simply making a point he has to make in the current political environment?

But please note what he does and doesn't affirm. He assures them that he believes giving weight and respect to precedent. But whatever the libs try to suggest, every justice, including Thomas [the one most likely, in principle, to set precedent aside] believes in some form of stare decisis, and for that matter all of them are willing to overturn what they regard as bad precedent (as liberals have done a number of times recently!). So this really a non-issue.

What to take note of, then, is what he says that is different and distinctive.

First, note that Roberts clearly refused to give in to Specter's pressure to declare Roe some sort of "super precedent".

But even more striking is that he doesn't make a general statement in favor of stare decisis and leave it there (as I seem to recall even Thomas did!) He choose to addresses (several times!) the limits of stare decisis, explaining why the court has acted or might legitimate act, to overturn a precedent!

If he's really just fine with Roe v Wade and could not imagine overturning it, why would he put that out there? As it is, he has acknowledged what is, made it clear that he respects precedent (and so can't be pegged as the flamethrower on a mission to fix this nutty court!), but articulated the basis on which he could decide to undo it!

Another thing to keep in perspective. It's not so certain that the court will even get a good opportunity any time soon to overturn Roe outright. (That's simply based on the sort of cases working their way through the system.)

It most certainly will, however, hear a number of cases involving various restrictions, e.g., partial birth, parental notification. These present the opportunity to "chip away" at the substance of Roe v Wade. There is plenty of reason to believe that Roberts, together with others of his sort Bush appoints would be inclined and able to do so.

It's just possible that such an incremental route will more effectively free us from Roe than would the immediate outright overturn (i.e., returning it all, immediately, to the states). Then, at the end of the process, the empty shell could be discarded.

In fact, Roberts' remarks today may have laid part of the groundwork for such a process. Please note the following:

Whether or not particular precedents have proven to be unworkable is another consideration on the other side -- whether the doctrinal bases of a decision had been eroded by subsequent developments.

For example, if you have a case in which there are three precedents that lead and support that result and in the intervening period two of them have been overruled, that may be a basis for reconsidering the prior precedent.

(And when Specter then tries to get him to assert that the "doctrinal bases" for Roe have not been undermined, Roberts refuses to answer!)

Just like his papa, little georgie is liberal to the bone.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday he will not ask Supreme Court nominee Joh

It is on the page right before "ultra-super-duper" precedent. :-)

I'm afraid that will lift his chances!

I also need some help finding "super precedent" in my dog eared copy of the Constitution.