Roberts: Roe V. Wade "Entitled to Respect"

From the Associated Press (via BREITBART.com)

WASHINGTON

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was "settled as a precedent." He declined to answer specific questions about abortion and voting rights, citing cases he could face on the high court.

My Comments:
I posted this over at Mark Shea's blog, but I thought it appropriate to post again here my comments regarding Roberts' remarks on stare decisis.

Let me go on record. Should John Roberts ever vote to uphold Roe and Casey on the basis of stare freakin' decisis, there is a much stronger argument for denying him Communion than there is for denying Communion to a pro-abort politician like John Kerry. In fact, he should be denied Communion should he ever vote to uphold such an abomination.

As a Supreme Court Justice, Roberts would have the power to right the wrong that was perpetrated by the Court in Roe, just as the Brown Court corrected the miscarriage of justice wrought by Plessy v. Ferguson. To forego that opportunity on the basis of a mere prudential rule of construction like stare decisis would be unpardonable.

Furthermore, stare decisis seems to only work with a ratchet effect - in other words, it works only in one direction.

It protects the precedents that the left wants to protect, but is thrown out the door anytime the left (via the courts) wants to rely on foreign law to foist upon us things like sodomy and homo-simulated-marriage and any other left-wing insanity that hasn't a chance of winning the support of the majority of the people.