![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I am not yet stating that I support or oppose the recent SCOTUS nominee. Nevertheless, there is one dishonest tactic being used that angers me.
The argument goes that Judge Alito should not be judged as anti-abortion because he cited and held to SCOTUS decisions about abortion, so he he clearly accepts Roe vs. Wade.
It sounds like a sound argument... to someone who knows absolutely nothing about the court system.
Appeals courts are *obligated* to follow SCOTUS decisions. An appeals court judge doesn't have the authority to overrule a decision of a higher court. All an appeals court judge could do is argue that the Supreme Court's decision did not apply for some reason, and the Supreme Court does its best to make sure its decisions are clear to avoid that kind of problem.
Yes, he obeyed orders as an appeals court justice... that does not mean he beleives that Roe vs. Wade should be upheld. Will he uphold Roe by the principle of stare decisis? We don't know. We do know we have reason to be suspicious.
The argument goes that Judge Alito should not be judged as anti-abortion because he cited and held to SCOTUS decisions about abortion, so he he clearly accepts Roe vs. Wade.
It sounds like a sound argument... to someone who knows absolutely nothing about the court system.
Appeals courts are *obligated* to follow SCOTUS decisions. An appeals court judge doesn't have the authority to overrule a decision of a higher court. All an appeals court judge could do is argue that the Supreme Court's decision did not apply for some reason, and the Supreme Court does its best to make sure its decisions are clear to avoid that kind of problem.
Yes, he obeyed orders as an appeals court justice... that does not mean he beleives that Roe vs. Wade should be upheld. Will he uphold Roe by the principle of stare decisis? We don't know. We do know we have reason to be suspicious.
