Roberts Hearing

I watched a bunch of the testimony yesterday and some of the clips, of various earlier section, of the hearings. Pretty much what I expected. Biden and Kennedy were exceptionally combative and couldn't allow answers from the judge to block their political rants. Kennedy was appalling. One of his questions was very long and meandering with a huge number of assumptions, and when Roberts didn't immediately agree with him, he just started talking over him.

Well, most of the senators were polite for the most part. I have to agree with the commentary I've seen at SCOTUSblog and elsewhere, that Roberts showed he was more clever and able than those questioning him.

Of course, abortion/privacy was the primary torture device of the day. Personally I think the relevant subject on this topic was related to precedence.

Roberts told Specter that he respected the doctrine of stare decisis -- letting decided issues stand -- adding, "I do think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent." But some long-standing cases deserve to be overturned, he said, such as those that legalized slavery in the 19th century and racial segregation in the 20th century.

Roberts set forth criteria that he said judges and justices should use to determine whether to "revisit" a precedent, saying they include "settled expectations," the court's legitimacy and whether a precedent is workable or has been "eroded by subsequent developments."

"It is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided," said Roberts, who during the 1980s signed a memo saying that Roe was "wrongly decided" and should be overturned.

When Specter asked whether the decision's legal legs have been eroded, Roberts replied: "I feel the need to stay away from a discussion of particular cases."

Later, Biden asked whether "there is a right of privacy to be found in the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment?" Roberts replied, "I do, Senator. I think that the court's expressions, and I think if my reading of the precedent is correct, I think every justice on the court believes that, to some extent or another." The answer appeared ambiguous because some of the current justices have made it clear they would support overturning Roe .

I think the WaPo interpretation of what was said isn't correct. It isn't ambiguous to state his belief that all of the justices believe that privacy rights exist in the 14th Amendment, even if some of those justices believe that Roe overstepped the bounds of what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.

Personally, I found the hearings to be frustrating to watch. The senator's grand-standing with their political diatribe and, in some cases, openly antagonistic questioning just sets your teeth on edge. Then there is the Ginzberg dodge, which I can understand, but would still like to know the answers. I understand the reasons why they shouldn't answer, but I still would like to know. Biden's bickering about Roberts not answering some questions, and then stating that they should fall under the Ginzberg principle was just amusing. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that senators believe they are always correct. It's just kind of fun when they run into someone that they can't brow-beat or defeat in the argument.