Let’s take my ‘offending statement’ one section at a time:
“But both indicated that the were inclined to defer to legal precedent with regards to abortion…”
Here is a Google Search on “Roberts abortion precedent”:
google.com/search?hl=en&q=Roberts+abortion+precedent
I’m not sure if results and order vary, but I get about 94,000 results, and the first one reads:
Here is a Google Search on 'Alito abortion precedent":
google.com/search?hl=en&q=Alito+abortion+precedent
Again, my first of 63,000 hits reads:
These should be of no surprise. In their sworn confirmation testimony, both Roberts and Alito affirmed the concept of “stare decisis”, a legal principle of adhering to principles laid down in previous decisions.
This is not some vague legal notion, but a pretty fundemental legal principle, for example, an appeals court is “bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions.” United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).
This is, of course, contrary to a strategy of ‘stacking’ a court with folks of a different mindset, but that is the point: “It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy . . . ‘is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.’” (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.)
So this is wholly what one would expect from a Supreme Court Justice nominee. A justice is not supposed to use the court and its decisions to perform judicial activism, that is, to put his/her own beliefs into law. The justices are supposed to uphold the law and dutifully and unformly apply it to each case. Being mindful of their obligation to a stable and predictable legal system is part of the job.
So, it was widely reported that both Alito and Roberts accepted that there was important legal precedent and both accepted the standard and important legal concept of precedent in their sworn testimony. If there is anything remotely false in the first part of my statement, it alludes me.
Moving on, I continued:
“and did so, supporting Roe and Casey as law without comment in Carhart.”
The Gonzales v. Carhart decision can be read in its entirety here:
supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf
The court opinion does not uphold a ban on certain abortion procedures on the basis of a change to either Casey or Roe. The prevailing opinion holds that the ban is fully conforming to existing law (the short argument is that the ban is legal, because there is no medical necessity to use the banned procedures instead of legal alternatives). Rather than going through that lengthy opinion, let’s examine the concurring opinion, from Justices Scalia and Thomas. It is very short:
Look at the first highlighted text (“accurately applies…”) Scalia and Thomas join the court in applying “stare decisis”. That is, they profess to be applying Roe and Casey precisely as intended in the original court rulings.
Now, look at the second highlight (“I write…”) Scalia and Thomas are applying “stare decisis”
with comment. That is, they are indicating that they are applying the existing legal precedents, but do not wish their doing so to give the precedents any additional legal weight in future cases. They are specifically doing this in a seperate opinion because the majority opinion does not.
Last, we have an interesting comment (“I also…”) suggesting that the ban would possibly have been considered unconstitutional had the question of the commerce clause of the constitution been raised. Scalia’s opinions on abortion are well known (and even reiterated here), but note that he and Thomas are still indicating that they would apply law over opinion if properly asked.
Since Thomas and Scalia interpretted the opinion joined by Alito and Roberts the same way I have, I do not see how it could be claimed that my interpretation is inarguably false!
You have now made extreme allegations against me in very personal and derogatory terms on at least three seperate occassions. On each occassion the accusations have been without demonstrable merit and, as the case here, at odds with verifiable facts.
So far, you have failed to indicate any remorse when confronted with these errors. And, since the trend persists, there is little indication that you are learning from past mistakes.
If you are concerned about being the target of false or misleading accusations, you might give some consideration to Matthew 7:12. Or, perhaps some of the writings of St. Ignatious of Loyola, who is quoted in CCC 2478.
