ConfirmThem

By Marshall Manson Posted in Roberts — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Roberts' answer was brilliant. He made a statement that will satisfy most Americans about privacy while leaving himself enough wiggle room to move the Court on that issue in the future.

UPDATE: Reid Cox, CFIF's General Counsel, adds this note on stare decisis:

Note that Judge Roberts did a masterful job in explaining that the doctrine of stare decisis (or following precedent) is not some sacred cow that must be adhered to 100 percent of the time. As Judge Roberts pointed out, Brown v. Board of Education (which overruled Plessy v. Ferguson’s mistaken separate but equal rule) and the West Coast Hotel case (which overruled the Lochner-era substantive due process rule) were cases in which the High Court departed from precedent —- and rightly so. Would anyone argue that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause permits separate but equal? Or that the Court should have upheld that rule simply because that mistaken precedent had already been established?

UPDATE II: I know many will be annoyed with Specter (and I would be the last to defend him). But his questionning on Roe was probably planned. It disarms Dems who intended to ask about that later. They'll still ask, but now the answer can always be, "I've answered that question for Senator Specter."