WASHINGTON, D.C., July 27, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, allegedly on the top of the list of possible candidates for a Supreme Court nomination before it was handed to John Roberts, told the Associated Press earlier this week that the Supreme Court is not bound by precedent, including Roe V. Wade.
Gonzales pointed out in reference to the speculation surrounding Roberts’ views on abortion that much has changed since Roberts was asked about Roe V. Wade during the senate hearings in 2003. At that time Roberts responded that Roe V. Wade is the “settled law” of the United States. That remark has produced some consternation amongst conservative groups who believe that Roe V. Wade is an unconstitutional ruling and ought to be overturned accordingly.
The Attorney-General’ remarks are serving to alleviate the doubt produced by Roberts’ previous statement and confirming what many who are knowledgeable in the judiciary have been insisting from the first. “If you’re asking a circuit court judge, like Judge Roberts was asked, yes, it is settled law because you’re bound by the precedent,” Gonzales said. “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 the meantime, with tens of thousands of pages of White House documents pertaining to Roberts being released, a clearer picture of the judge’s consistently conservative jurisprudence is emerging. It has been revealed that some of Roberts’ most substantial work under the Reagan administration was dedicated to defending bills in Congress designed to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over abortion, busing and school prayer cases. “None of the pending bills concerning jurisdiction in abortion or school prayer cases directly burden the exercise of any fundamental rights,” said Roberts at the time. When then Attorney General Olson remarked that opposing the proposed bills would be courageous Roberts wrote in the margin by that remark, “Real courage would be to read the Constitution as it should be read!”
In numerous other instances the young lawyer repeatedly called for judicial restraint. With the conclusion of one case, the outcome of which he disagreed with, Roberts remarked: “In sum, this is a case in which our supposed litigation program to encourage judicial restraint did not get off the ground and should have.”
He also criticized certain elements of affirmative action policies, especially after many of those policies failed. This is an interesting aspect of Roberts’ views, since retired Justice O’Connor has received a great deal of criticism for saying after the announcement of his nomination that Roberts is “perfect in every way, except he’s not a woman.”
“There is no recognition of the obvious reason for failure,” said Roberts after it was acknowledged that some of the programs had indeed seen a high drop-out rate. “The affirmative action program required the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates.”
Curiously, one of the documents released by the White House is a memo where Roberts outlines a plan for shepherding then Supreme Court nominee Justice O’Connor through the senate process. “The approach,” said Roberts, “was to avoid giving specific responses to any direct questions on legal issues likely to come before the Court, but demonstrating in the response a firm command of the subject area and awareness of the relevant precedents and arguments.”
It is expected that Roberts will assume a similar tactic during the upcoming senate hearings into his nomination.
jj