The revenge of Alberto Gonzales

Just when the confirmation battle over John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court seemed to be smoothing out into an unobstructed path, jilted nominee-wannabe Alberto Gonzales throws a spike strip into the road.

The Attorney General gave an interview to the Associated Press on Tuesday and said Roberts' 2003 statement that Roe v. Wade is settled law is no longer binding on him once he gets to the Supreme Court.

"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."

And with that, the abortion question is placed squarely on the table again.

Does John Roberts accept the Supreme Court's decisions that have found a right to privacy in the Constitution? If so, does he accept the Supreme Court's 1973 decision that the right to privacy includes a woman's right to a legal abortion in early pregnancy? Does he believe that privacy is a fundamental right? If so, does he believe the government has a compelling interest in protecting unborn life that is sufficient to justify the limitation of that right?

With the Supreme Court closely divided, the vitally important policy decisions on this emotional issue will be made not by the elected representatives of the people of each state, or by their elected representatives in Congress, but by the personal value judgments of the next person to be confirmed as a justice of the Supreme Court.

Is this any way to run a railroad?

Read "Why There is No Constitutional Right to Privacy, and How to Get One" for another view.


Copyright 2005

.