ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Here it is. The transcript for yesterday (Tuesday) is here. I found this exchange today interesting:

SESSIONS: One more thing that I'd just like to inquire about, and that deals with stare decisis, the deference you give to a prior decision of the Supreme Court. And you've mentioned a number of factors. And I recognize those as valid and worthy of great consideration. But it almost strikes me that is a bit circular. In other words, the court is creating a wall around its opinions to try to avoid seeing them overruled. Isn't it true that your first oath is to enforce the Constitution, as God gives you the ability to understand it, and that sometimes decisions have to be reversed if they are contrary to a fair and just reading of the Constitution?

ROBERTS: Yes, Senator, the oath we take is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. That's true. And the way judges go about that is within a system of precedent and, consistent with rules of stare decisis, no judge starts the day by opening a blank slate and he said, "What should the Constitution mean today?" You operate within those systems of precedents. That's the best way that we judges have determined to interpret the Constitution and laws consistent with principles of stare decisis.

The other statement by Judge Roberts today that I found particularly illuminating is here.