Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
And what does that prove? Do you see where I'm going with the suggestion that your potential argument here is weak at best? You're trying to read into his intent, his heart and soul, and what he would do given a hypothetical situation. In this situation, he respected settled law, he announced his respect for it even though he may personally have reservations. Personal reservations do not equal judicial opinions.
|
But the Supreme Court DOES NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW ROE. THEY CAN OVERTURN IT.
That's what that proves. My argument is not weak, it's true.
As an appellate judge, he was bound by the precedents of the Supreme Court. As a Supreme Court justice, he is not.
Hybrid Mode
