Roberts, Alito and The Rule of Law

[G_j]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/roberts-alito-and-the-ru_b_54273.html

Roberts, Alito and The Rule of Law

Posted June 28, 2007 | 07:30 PM (EST)

<sip>
John Roberts assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that judges must "be bound down by rules and precedents." Invoking Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, he affirmed that "the founders appreciated the role of precedent in promoting evenhandedness, predictability, stability," and "integrity in the judicial process." Although acknowledging that it is sometimes necessary for judges to reconsider precedents, he stressed that this should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, where a decision has proved clearly "unworkable" over time. But in general, "a sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath."

Similarly, Samuel Alito testified to the Senate that the doctrine of stare decisis is "a fundamental part of our legal system." This principle, he explained, "limits the power of the judiciary" and "reflects the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions." Stare decisis, he added, it is "not an inexorable command," but there must be a strong "presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents."

It is hardly surprising that Roberts and Alito would pay such obeisance to the doctrine of stare decisis in order to get themselves confirmed. Stare decisis is, after all, the bedrock principle of the rule of law. Not only does it promote stability and encourage judges to decide cases based on principle rather than on a preference for one or another of the parties before them, but it also serves importantly to reduce the politicization of the Court. It moderates ideological swings and preserves both the appearance and the reality that the Supreme Court is truly a legal rather than a political institution.

Disturbingly, John Roberts's and Samuel Alito's actions on the Court now speak much louder than their words to Congress. During the past year, Roberts and Alito have repeatedly abandoned the principle of stare decisis, and they have done so in a particularly insidious manner. In a series of very important decisions, they have cynically pretended to honor precedent while actually jettisoning those precedents one after another.
..more..

[nradisic]

1. Impeach the bastards!

They lied! Impeach them.

[ClayZ]

3. Impeach them! K and R

Liars both!

[connecticut yankee]

2. Where is the outrage?

[fasttense]

4. There is no rule of law anymore.

From illegal immigrants and their employers, to CEOs, to the State DAs, to the Federal Justice Department, to each executive branch, to the Vice President, to the President and to the Supreme Court, no one follows the law. It is as if we have become a nation of whims and political ideology with no constraints and no accountability. There is no justice in this country, there is no respect for laws, there is no United States Constitution.

[Avalux]

5. All we need now is another terrorist attack to seal the deal.

Martial law and the suspension of elections. I used to think it couldn't happen, but I don't think that way anymore.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Their rulings have the effect of coming within a hair of overruling

precedent while labeling their decisons as "development" or "evolution" of the law.

[malaise]

7. I am not surprised in the least

The Dems were more worried about the impact of Mrs Alito's tears than Sam's clearly fascist tendencies.

[Solly Mack]

8. Know what question Alito was answering regarding the "stare decisis" quote?

in the OP?

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court

SPECTER: How would you weigh that (referring to the precedents) consideration on the woman's right to choose?

ALITO: Well, I think the doctrine of stare decisis is a very important doctrine. It's a fundamental part of our legal system.

And it's the principle that courts in general should follow their past precedents. And it's important for a variety of reasons. It's important because it limits the power of the judiciary. It's important because it protects reliance interests. And it's important because it reflects the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions.

It's not an inexorable command, but it is a general presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents.

[G_j]

9. yea, he sure conned his way through that question

There is absolutely no reason to believe him.
just wait until the REAL question arises and a woman's right to choose is before him in court. :scared:

[Solly Mack]

10. I don't believe anyone who claims "I believed him"

Well, let's put it this way - if they are telling the truth and they did actually "trust" the man -either of them, for that matter

then those people are so stupid their very existence defies all reason

Liar or stupid beyond comprehension

some choice

[G_j]

11. so stupid their very existence defies all reason

couldn't have put it better! :-)

of course I don't think they were really stupid at all, just amoral sellouts.

[Solly Mack]

12. True - not stupid at all

but people will lie and pretend they didn't have a clue as to how bad Alito and Roberts would be