Calling a bluff and setting-up a standard

John Nichols of The Nation has set a bit of a standard for the Senators on the Judiciary Committee who have hinted they'll give Roberts a 'free pass' because he seems to be a "nice guy" with a satisfactory past judicial record. Shorter Nichols: if Roberts while under oath "promised" that he would not seek to overturn Roe as Chief Justice but then does so, then the pro-choice Senators who voted for him have an obligation to expose him lying under oath, and then call for his removal. Pretty harsh but then even cowardly, considering it would be a very convenient way for the pro-choice Dems in the Senate who would vote 'yes' for Roberts, then use him to shamelessly shift the blame away from their own failures should Roe fall due to a SC ruling. Roberts would then be their little 'scape-goat, not that I would shed a tear for him. Although it would be very interesting and outrageous to see the pro-choice Dems blame someone else for the destruction of women's reproductive rights, when a significant number of them have been standing by, compromising, rolling-over for anti-choicers, ignoring their voters--especially women-voters, dismissing abortion-rights advocacy groups, and enabling the process all along. Namely, by possibly voting next week to confirm someone who poses a threat to Roe and women's reproductive rights to the SC, as Chief Justice no doubt. But enough of that, Nichols.....

[...]Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination that the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is "entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis," the legal standard that long-established court rulings should not be casually challenged.

When pressed, Roberts suggested that only in extraordinary circumstances--when the precedent has proved to be "unworkable" or "difficult to apply"--should the Court even consider overturning settled law.

Since the Roe v. Wade precedent has survived basically intact through three decades of legal and legislative assaults, and since it has not proved to be unworkable or difficult to apply, Roberts has effectively promised the Senate--under oath--that he will not seek as the Chief Justice to outlaw abortion or other reproductive rights.[...]

Did Roberts seek to deceive the committee?

Don't all judicial nominees and even political candidates "deceive" their audience(s)--ie: a town hall meeting of potential voters or a Judiciary Committee--to some extent in order to woo them, and gain entrance into that much sought after office? It makes you wonder if some of them read Machiavelli's The Prince before even beginning their careers in politics or the Judiciary.

[...]But Roberts has clearly indicated a position with regard to Roe v. Wade. And that position is that, no matter what his personal opinions, he would not serve on the nation's highest court as the sort of conservative judicial activist who sets out to overturn established law.

It appears at this point that a number of senators who support a woman's right to choose will vote to confirm Roberts's nomination, which in all likelihood will gain the approval of the full Senate. It also appears, from the comments of these senators, that many of them were impressed with Roberts's performance before the Judiciary Committee--even if they would have preferred that the nominee be more forthcoming in response to questioning from Democratic and Republican senators.

While your correspondent continues to hold to the view that there are more than enough reasons to reject Roberts--beginning with his record on voting rights issues and certainly including his radical pro-business track record--he also recognizes political reality. In recognizing reality, however, it is important to set basic standards.

If and when senators who are supportive of reproductive rights cast their votes for Roberts, they ought make note of the nominee's statements to the committee with regard to this issue. Get it in the record again. And then add to the record a notation that a nominee who intentionally lies to the Senate must necessarily be subject to impeachment and removal from office.

These senators should also make it clear that, if John Roberts turns out to be the judicial activist that some fear, and if that activism takes the form of an attack on what he has described as "settled" law, then they will move the impeachment resolution immediately.

Damn, and here my solution would have been to simply refuse to vote for any Democratic Senator (or anyone else) who would vote 'yes' for Roberts' confirmation. Which I can pretty much count on doing since--sigh--Roberts is due to get a pass from the Senate in about a week. Or, for a more extreme solution, depending on the mood of everyone else in the pro-choice movement, insist that the women of this country who value their reproductive rights and wished to be viewed as autonomous citizens in the eyes of the Law, form their own political party much like the feminist women of Sweden, or perhaps one similar to Canada's 'feminist initiative' party still in progress. As already mentioned that would be the extreme. But hey, let's just watch how things turn out with Roberts on the bench.....and for me at least, despair all the while. And on a final note, a hat-tip to the New York Times for publishing a very powerful article about women and abortion--' Under Din of Abortion Debate, an Experience Shared Quietly'.