oooh SLICK

John Roberts has been in hearings with the Senate Judiciary Committee for a week now, and we still know very little about the man. He did give us a clue in responding to a pointed question that he does believe the Constitution protects the right to privacy. What that right to privacy means, though, can be interpreted in many ways.

Roe v. Wade, for example, is based upon one’s right to privacy. A law was struck down in Texas that barred consensual sodomy on the basis of the right to privacy. The concept of privacy, if expanded, could include matters like the right to die, the right to participate in armed service, and other issues. So John Roberts believes the Constitution protects the right to privacy. What’s he going to do with that belief?

He also, in response to questioning this week, stated that he does believe in respecting judicial precedent — a concept known as stare decisis. Under stare decisis, law continues to be shaped by previous court cases. However, stare decisis does not mean a court case once decided will stand forever — Plessy v. Ferguson, which allowed for “separate but equal” public schools and other facilities, was later struck down by Brown v. Board of Education, which made segregation illegal. Prohibition was repealed in a consitutional amendment. So Roberts’ saying he does respect judicial precedent isn’t telling us terribly much.

So where does he stand, and where will he stand, on the issues that will shape the rest of our lives in this country? He ain’t telling. To which I say, damn, that’s slick. And a little scary.

Post a Comment | Print Print | Trackback URI