Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Judicial Doublespeak?

According to recent AP reports, President Bush has nominated John G. Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The President had said that he would appoint "people who will strictly interpret the Constitution" and hailed Roberts as such.

Such rhetoric is encouraging, but Roberts' own rhetoric is contradictory on the matter as he sees Roe v. Wade as "law of the land". Since Article I Section 1 of the Constitution says "All legislative powers" are vested in Congress, a strict interpretation would not accept a court decision as law.

Apparently in President Bush's mind a strict constructionist would not legislate from the bench, but would still accept previous court decisions as legislation. This duplicity is not surprising from a politician who aims to promote a "culture of life" while funding abortion advocacy groups with our tax dollars (along with other unconstitutional spending).

Pray for President Bush.

Hat Tip: Lee Shelton.


Blogger nora said...

"Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land...There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

This is the statement Roberts made during his his 2003 confirmation hearing for appellate court justice. Please correct me if I'm wrong (I know very little about these things) but isn't it true that an appellate court justice is bound to adhere to precedent, while a Supreme Court justice has the authority to actually interpret law? If Roberts would have answered this any other way he would have given his opposition (and his supporters, for that matter) in the Senate good reason not to confirm him.

Could this be the reason for the alleged doublespeak?

I like your blog and I'm adding it to my blogroll. And I do pray for the President daily.

22/7/05 14:54  
Blogger Editor said...

Several of the President's other judicial nominees, William Pryor for an example, stated basically the same thing in their conformation hearings.

1/8/05 09:04  
Blogger Eaglet said...


I think it could be the reason for the doublespeak, but since the Constitution says that Congress, not the courts, have "all legislative power" (Article 1, Section 1), then it is improper to call a court decision "law of the land."

1/8/05 22:03  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home