Secter T's it Up for Roberts - Stare Decisis v. Prudential Certitude
 

Caught some of the hearings today driving in - Arlen Secter came across as a hard line but in listening carefully to his questions, he elegantly t'd it up for Roberts to address the Roe v. Wade controversy. I didn't catch it all but the spirit seemed to rest on the ability of the courts to make judements on past decisions (stare decisis). Of course the question remains - does one adhere to stare decisis or must one apply prudential certitude? Depending on the information forthcoming or the decisions built on precedents?

I've been watching them on cspan3: http://play.rbn.com/play.asx?url=cspan/cspan/wmlive/cspan3v.asf&proto=mms?mswmext=.asx

If precedence violates the Constitution it should be overturned...This is why the nomination is so critical, liberals cannot get their wishes passed into law at the ballot box and so they rule by judicial fiat (judicial activism)...unconstitutionally.

Roberts is as eloquent a speaker as he is a legal expert. Regardless of his slant, he is the absolute best person for the post of Chief Justice. hearing him talk made me wish I went to law school and had him for a prof.

stare decisis< Constitution

I think tyat is why Secter was banging him on it - get it up, get it out before the liberals could spin a tale. Roberts made his case that he is a servant of the law and not the law. He is the umpire not the game.

Two more Sens than its the dems - all moot, the votes are in, but what about that 1983 memo?

Just wait until Hillary! makes it to the White House...she'd nominate Janet Reno.