Reply #56: At the Supreme Court level, the law never "requires" a ruling. [View All]

[Divernan]

Roberts should have pointed out to the questioner that at the level of the Supreme Court, the law never "require(s) a ruling", i.e, rely solely on precedent of previous decisions. Each justice on the Court has the option of filing a dissent in opposition to existing law, and suggesting that a change in that law is in order. If enough justices agree, the existing law is overruled/reversed. This would be what could happen if a majority of justices on the court decided to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Of the many cases which are appealed to the Supreme Court each year, only some are selected for consideration. One basis for consideration is if the Court is ready to overturn the existing law/precedent.

It was a stupid question for the Senator to ask (probably dreamed up by a legislative aide without a law degree) and it amazes me that such a supposedly slick lawyer like Roberts would not have given the explanation in Paragraph One above.
I think he must have been under such strict orders not to give out any HINT of an opinion on Roe v. Wade that he just froze and wasn't thinking clearly.