WaxWorks
|
Thursday, February 06, 2003
WaxWorks is proud to say that it played a part in getting Josh Marshall and talkingpointsmemo.com on top of this story about Miguel Estrada giving false testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee back in September. It appears that Estrada claimed that he had never considered Roe v. Wade as one would "in the judicial function."
MR. ESTRADA: The Supreme Court has so held and I have no view of any nature whatsoever, whether it be legal, philosophical, moral, or any other type of view that would keep me from [sic] apply that case law faithfully.
SEN. FEINSTEIN: Do you believe that Roe was correctly decided?
MR. ESTRADA: I have -- my view of the judicial function, Senator Feinstein, does not allow me to answer that question. I have a personal view on the subject of -- of abortion, as I think you know. And -- but I have not done what I think the judicial function would require me to do in order to ascertain whether the court got it right as an original matter. I haven't listened to parties. I haven't come to an actual case of controversy with an open mind. I haven't gone back and run down everything that they have cited. And the reason I haven't done any of those things is that I view our system of law as one in which both me as an advocate, and possibly if I am confirmed as a judge, have a job of building on the wall that is already there and not to call it into question. I have had no particular reason to go back and look at whether it was right or wrong as a matter of law, as I would if I were a judge that was hearing the case for the first time. It is there. It is the law as it has subsequently refined by the Casey case, and I will follow it.
But the year Estrada clerked for Justice Kennedy, 1988-89, the Supreme Court considered Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which explicitly addressed the issue of whether or not Roe v. Wade should be overruled. First Clarence Thomas says he never discussed Roe with anyone, then Ted Olson denies any involvement with the Arkansas Project, now this. Is there a perjury exception for Republicans?
Comments:
Post a Comment
