The Manchurian Conservative?
A reader offers a very interesting, if way-out, theory in reply to my criticism of John Roberts and his conservative supporters:
The question of Robertís commitment to pro-life conservatism cannot be reduced to his statement in 2003, when he appeared before the Judiciary Committee. His assertion that Roe was settled law did not necessarily imply that he would not vote to overturn Roe as a Supreme Court Justice. At the time, he was being confirmed for an appellate judicial position. Since Roe is binding on the appellate courts, Roberts was obligated to follow its precedent. A Supreme Court decision that has been undisturbed for nearly thirty years constitutes settled law.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 23, 2005 11:12 AM | Send