John Roberts' long history with abortion and Roe v. 걸어 건너기

워싱턴에서 젊은 변호사로 첫 직장을 옮긴 이후, 존 로버츠work has been entangled with Roe v. 걸어 건너기, 그만큼 1973 여성에게 임신을 끝낼 수 있는 권리를 부여한 결정.

He helped hoist the banner against Roe in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. But years later, ...동안 2005 Senate hearings for the chief justice post he now holds, Roberts testified that Roe should be respected as precedent, particularly after being affirmed in 1992. And he has largely held to that.
지금, 로버츠, the Supreme Court and the country face a pivotal moment for abortion rights. And Robertsaction in a dispute the court will take up this week, over Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, could be his most consequential. He leads a conservative bench that, since last year’s succession of Amy Coney Barrett for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has appeared on the precipice of reversing Roe v. 걸어 건너기.
    Dueling parties in the Mississippi case known at Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization have laced their briefs with lines from Robertsopinions regarding abortion rights and the value of adhering to precedent or, alternatively, discarding it. The chief justice writes with care, never leaving himself in cement, which lets both sides emphasize the words that suit their purpose.
      Roberts represents more than one vote among the nine. As chief, he steers the discussion. If he is in the majority, he also assigns the opinion that will speak for the court. 더욱이, Roberts has tried to inspire public confidence in the federal judiciary and repeatedly argued that its opinions reflect justices’ 중립국, impartial views rather than any political instincts.
        Polls show that public approval of the court has dropped in recent months, notably since September 1 when the majority allowed a Texas ban on abortions after roughly six weeks of pregnancy to take effect even as litigation over the law that plainly conflicts with Roe v. Wade was underway. Roberts broke from his colleagues on the right wing in that case, dissenting as he wrote that the court should at least temporarily suspend the ban while courts assessed the validity of the law. 법정 heard oral arguments 11 월 1 and has yet to rule.
        Unlike the distinct procedural dispute in the Texas case, the Mississippi abortion controversy goes right to the heart of abortion rights, testing whether women nationwide have a right to end a pregnancy before viability. 그건, when a fetus can live outside the womb, ...에서 22-24 주.
          Both Roe v. 걸어 건너기, nearly a half century ago, and the decision that affirmed it two decades later, Planned Parenthood v. 케이시, declared viability to be the cutoff line for when the pregnant woman’s interest could be eclipsed by protection for the fetus.
          Casey reaffirmed ‘the most central principle of Roe v. 걸어 건너기,’ ‘a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy before viability,'” Roberts wrote in a 2020 Louisiana case as he quoted the 1992 결정.
          The question now is whether that line will hold.

          The Reagan and Bush years

          After graduating from Harvard law school and completing a Supreme Court clerkship with then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist, Roberts joined the Reagan administration in 1981.
          Reagan had campaigned on a platform against Roe v. Wade and a declaration ofthe sanctity of innocent human life.His administration worked against reproductive rights in its policy agenda and court filings.
          로버츠, who was a junior lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department and then White House counsel’s office, assumed more responsibility for the administration’s legal agenda when the first President Bush came to office in 1989. Roberts became deputy US solicitor general, representing the federal government before the high court.
          Roberts shepherded the 1991 경우에 Rust v. 설리반, as the administration argued it could forbid family planning clinics that received federal funds from providing abortion counseling. The case tested whether that prohibition impinged the free speech of physicians and other health care providers.
          We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled,” the Bush administration asserted in the brief signed by Roberts. It contended Roe v. Wade lacked any support in the Constitution’s text or history. The high court had grounded the right to end a pregnancy in the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantee of personal liberty and relied on past cases affirming personal privacy rights.
          The Supreme Court ruled narrowly for the Bush administration in Rust v. 설리반, letting the government forbid abortion-related counseling at federally funded clinics, but forgoing any new review of Roe.
          The following year, 에 1992 Planned Parenthood v. 케이시 케이스, justices in the majority highlighted at the outset that the Reagan and Bush administrations had argued in a total of six cases over the previous decade for reversal of Roe: “Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. 아직 19 years after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, that definition is still questioned. Joining the respondents as amicus curiae, 미국, as it has done in five other cases in the last decade, again asks us to overrule Roe.

          On the bench

          During Senate hearings when President George W. Bush chose him first for a US appellate court and then elevated him to the Supreme Court, Roberts said his arguments on behalf of past administrations reflected his professional advocacy and not necessarily his personal views. He also said Roe was entitled to respect under principles ofstare decisis,” 그건, adherence to precedent.
          Unlike fellow conservative 판사 클라렌스 토마스, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, Roberts has declined to publicly press for reconsideration of Roe in his writings as a justice.
          He also has not voted as rigidly against abortion rights as Justice Brett Kavanaugh or been as personally outspoken as Barrett. Before becoming a judge, Barrett, a Notre Dame law professor, was a vocal critic of Roe v. 걸어 건너기, including signing a statement that denounced Roe’sbarbaric legacyand called forthe unborn to be protected in law.
          Roberts is a lifelong Catholic whose wife, 여자, provided pro bono legal counsel to anti-abortion nonprofit Feminists for Life. Roberts told senators in 2005 that his faith would not be a factor in his rulings.
          Two years after his confirmation, Roberts helped forge a five-justice bloc to rule that the federal government could ban an abortion procedure in which the woman’s cervix is dilated and the fetus is removed intact. Critics called itpartial birth abortion.” 그만큼 2007 Supreme Court decision essentially reversed a 2000 ruling that had invalidated a similar prohibition on the procedure under Nebraska law.
          The Supreme Court’s next major abortion case came nearly a decade later, 에 2016, and Roberts dissented as the majority struck down Texas requirements that physicians who perform abortions obtainadmitting privilegesat a local hospital and clinics convert to costly, hospital-grade facilities.
          But in a 2020 dispute over similar physician credentialing requirements in Louisiana, Roberts voted against the law based on that 2016 전례. Roberts said he still disagreed with the 2016 decision but would follow it as precedent. His rationale and key decisive vote in that case of June Medical Services v. Russo would, 하나, bolster statesability to defend abortion regulations.

          Citizens United

          The Mississippi case stands to transform reproductive rights. It centers not on a discrete regulation of abortion but a wholesale ban after 15 임신 주. The state wants the high court to reverse the holding of Roe that protects a woman’s decision to end a pregnancy before viability.
          Mississippi officials assert thatRoe and Casey are indefensible,” and they retrieve lines from Robertsopinion in the 2020 Louisiana case suggesting the balancing of government interests and women’s reproductive rights should be left tolegislators, not judges.
          Mississippi’s lawyers highlight Robertsvote and concurring opinion in the 2010 경우에 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, when the justices by a 5-4 vote reversed precedent and lifted regulations on corporate independent expenditures in election campaigns.
          Stare decisis’s ‘greatest purpose is to serve a constitutional idealthe rule of law,'” the Mississippi state lawyers write, adopting Robertsphrasing from 2010 and arguing thatadhering to Roe and Casey ‘does more to damage this constitutional ideal than to advance it.'
          A group of constitutional law scholars backing the Jackson Women’s Health Organization counter those arguments with other lines from RobertsCitizens Union opinion, noting he wrote thatFidelity to precedent—the policy of stare decisis—is vital to the proper exercise of the judicial function.Even as he voted to overturn precedent, Roberts had observed in that case that stare decisis promotes predictable development of the law, fosters reliance on rulings and contributes to perceptions of judicial integrity.
          Klobuchar on whether Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. 걸어 건너기

            방금 본

            Klobuchar on whether Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. 걸어 건너기

          시청해야합니다

          Klobuchar on whether Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. 걸어 건너기 09:07

          Jackson Women’s Health Organization itself briefly cites Citizen United as it asserts that while some may disagree with past rulings, “it is critical that judicial protection hold firm absent the most dramatic and unexpected changes in law or fact,” so justices not be seen as merely exercising their own preferences.
            Other supporters of Jackson Women’s Health Organization, including the Department of Justice, represented by the administration of Joe Biden, revive Robertsassertion from the June Medical Services case thatfor precedent to mean anything, the doctrine (of stare decisis) must give way only to a rationale that goes beyond whether the case was decided correctly.
            And that is the essence of the Supreme Court’s loyalty to precedent. The principle goes beyond whether a decision can be called “옳은” 또는 “incorrect,” to whether it remains so central to the fabric of American law and sufficiently relied on to — 결국 — preserve.

            댓글이 닫혀 있습니다..