John Roberts: The Man for the Job?

Here's a quote from an AP article in my local newspaper, from a few days ago:

"The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways," Roberts said at one point. Hours later, he said he agreed with a 38-yr.-old high court ruling in a case involving contraceptives for married couples, a decision often cited as the underpinning for abortion rights.

He said that if confronted w/ an abortion case--as seems likely in the high court's upcoming term--he would give full weight to the precedent of the landmark ruling that established a woman's right to end her pregnancy.

"The legal principle of "stare decisis" requires that, he said--but he also said that the same principle allows past rulings to be overturned.

The final paragraph above essentially contradicts the one just before it. "Stare decisis" is the legal principle of following precedent in court rulings. Yes, it does facilitate overturning bad precedent, but how will this happen under Roberts' watch, when he's made it clear that he will follow precedent? His commentary is pure gobbledygook.

This, coupled with his pro homo--er, I mean, pro bono--work for a homosexual lobbying group in his lawyering days is a red flag, for me.

This nomination process for SCOTUS Chief Justice says even more about George Bush than it does Roberts. The President could've chosen almost anyone for this appointment--a stout constitutional constructionist who plans following the Founders' intentions, for example. But I suppose we'll have to settle for a man who won't rock the boat, and who will not defend the pro-baby position.

That's one reason why I'm no longer a Republican. I became tired of "settling for" things.