Justice Roberts on abortion precedent at 2005 confirmation hearing

By | December 4, 2021

Justice Roberts on abortion precedent at 2005 confirmation hearing

1 00:00:00,090 –> 00:00:06,210 >> Well in the particular case of Roe obviously you had the Casey decision in 90 92 2 00:00:06,210 –> 00:00:11,340 or 93 92 92 in which they went through the various factors on 3 00:00:11,340 –> 00:00:16,800 stare decisis and reaffirmed the central holding and Roe while revisiting the 4 00:00:16,800 –> 00:00:22,460 trimester framework and the substituting the undue burden analysis for 5 00:00:22,460 –> 00:00:28,050 its strict scrutiny. So as of 92 you had a reaffirmation of the central holding 6 00:00:28,050 –> 00:00:30,030 in Roe. That’s that decision. 7 00:00:30,060 –> 00:00:35,700 >> That application of the principles of starry decisis is of course itself a precedent that 8 00:00:35,700 –> 00:00:39,450 would be entitled to respect under those principles. 9 00:00:39,450 –> 00:00:44,820 >> Why do you think this issue is so important to so many women in America. The whole 10 00:00:44,820 –> 00:00:50,520 question of Roe versus Wade the question of reproductive freedom and the Question of Freedom of Choice Why 11 00:00:50,520 –> 00:00:52,590 do you think it’s so important. 12 00:00:52,590 –> 00:00:57,840 >> Well I think it’s important. And again. And to women on both sides of the issue and 13 00:00:57,840 –> 00:01:03,930 also I think to men as well. But obviously it’s an issue that directly affects women it’s a fundamental question 14 00:01:03,930 –> 00:01:09,180 as the court has addressed in in Roe and in Casey that 15 00:01:09,180 –> 00:01:16,050 obviously affects the lives directly of millions of Americans and the availability of 16 00:01:16,050 –> 00:01:19,460 rights under that decision affects women. 17 00:01:20,100 –> 00:01:25,320 >> But I know there people of strongly held views on both sides of the issue. And 18 00:01:25,320 –> 00:01:30,420 I know that the responsibility of a judge confronting this issue is to 19 00:01:30,420 –> 00:01:36,150 decide the case according to the rule of law consistent with the precedents not to take sides 20 00:01:36,150 –> 00:01:41,550 in a dispute as a matter of policy but the decided according to the law. And it’s the extent the. Your 21 00:01:41,550 –> 00:01:46,860 questions earlier about you know what causes we agree with causes we 22 00:01:46,860 –> 00:01:47,520 don’t agree with. 23 00:01:47,520 –> 00:01:53,070 >> I do want to emphasize that there is a unifying theme in my approach both as a lawyer and 24 00:01:53,070 –> 00:01:58,230 as a judge. And that is the cause that I believe in passionately the one to which I 25 00:01:58,230 –> 00:02:03,780 have devoted my professional career is the vindication of the rule of law. And I tried to explain in 26 00:02:03,780 –> 00:02:08,910 my opening statement on Monday why that’s important because without it any other rights that 27 00:02:08,910 –> 00:02:12,330 you may agree with as a matter of policy are meaningless. 28 00:02:12,330 –> 00:02:13,830 >> You need to have courts that will enforce.