WASHINGTON — At Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s confirmation hearings 14 years ago, the first dozen questions were about whether he would respect the Supreme Court’s abortion precedents. He was still answering those questions Thursday night.
In a surprise move, the chief justice joined the Supreme Court’s liberal wing in a 5-to-4 decision blocking a Louisiana law that could have severely restricted abortion in the state. Although he offered no reason for his vote, there is little doubt that he wanted to avoid sending the message that the court was ready to discard a 2016 decision, a precedent, in which it struck down a similar Texas law.
But the court’s order was just three sentences long, and the stay it imposed was temporary. The case is likely to reach the court on its merits next term. And when that happens, it is hardly certain that Chief Justice Roberts will vote to strike down the Louisiana law.
The seeming inconsistency is the result of competing impulses. Chief Justice Roberts is a product of the conservative legal movement, and his general approach is to lean right. But he is also an institutionalist and a guardian of his court’s legitimacy, meaning he wants to make modest and deliberate moves.
In practice, that may mean that abortion rights — like gay rights, affirmative action and protections for criminal defendants — are not at immediate risk. But they are in more danger now that the chief justice has assumed the pivotal role on the court that used to belong to the somewhat more liberal Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who retired last year.
Thursday’s order, then, was hardly a guarantee that Chief Justice Roberts will vote to protect the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade in 1973, Michael C. Dorf, a law professor at Cornell, wrote in a blog post.
“But it does suggest that he is at least in a go-slow mode,” Professor Dorf wrote.
“So no, the abortion right is not safe,” he added. “But it’s not in quite as much immediate danger as one might have thought. And that’s not nothing.”
At his 2005 confirmation hearings, Chief Justice Roberts told Senator Arlen Specter that the Supreme Court should be wary of overturning precedents, in part because doing so threatens the court’s legitimacy.
“It is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent,” he said. “Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness.”
Mr. Specter, at the time a moderate Republican protective of abortion rights, was pleased with the answer. “A jolt to the legal system, a movement against stability — one of the Roberts doctrines,” he said.
That Roberts doctrine was on display Thursday. The precedent at risk was Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which in 2016 struck down a Texas abortion law that required doctors providing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The majority said the requirement served no medical purpose and imposed an undue burden on women’s constitutional right to abortion.
The vote was 5 to 3, with Chief Justice Roberts one of the dissenters. He might have been expected to take a similar stance in Thursday’s case. Instead, at least for now, he declined to give the legal system a jolt.
At the confirmation hearing, Mr. Specter also tried to get Chief Justice Roberts to say that Roe was a “super-duper precedent,” because the Supreme Court had reaffirmed its core holding in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Chief Justice Roberts declined to adopt Mr. Specter’s terminology, but he did not quarrel with his larger point. Indeed, he said the legal doctrine of stare decisis, which is Latin for “to stand by things decided,” counseled caution in light of the Casey decision’s extended discussion of the importance of adhering to precedent.
“The Casey decision itself, which applied the principles of stare decisis to Roe v. Wade, is itself a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis,” Chief Justice Roberts said. “That is itself a precedent. It’s a precedent on whether or not to revisit the Roe v. Wade precedent. And under principles of stare decisis, that would be where any judge considering the issue in this area would begin.”
At the same time, he said respect for precedent must sometimes give way to other considerations, including whether “a particular precedent is workable or not” as a practical matter and “whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments” in the law.
Chief Justice Roberts has occasionally voted to overrule precedents, notably in cases on campaign finance and public unions. In 2007, he joined the majority in a 5-to-4 decision sustaining the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Act. Just seven years earlier, the court had struck down a similar Nebraska law by the same vote.
What had changed in the interim was that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor had retired and been succeeded by the more conservative Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
“The key to the case was not in the difference in wording between the federal law and the Nebraska act,” Erwin Chemerinsky, now dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote at the time. “It was Justice Alito having replaced Justice O’Connor.”
Abortion rights proponents worry that the replacement of Justice Kennedy with the more conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh may cause a similar shift.
Justice Kennedy was, after all, in the majority in the 2016 Texas case. Since then, two Trump appointees — Justices Kavanaugh and Neil M. Gorsuch — have joined the court.
On Thursday, Justice Kavanaugh appeared to acknowledge the binding nature of the Texas decision, though he chose his words carefully.
“All parties, including the state of Louisiana, agree that Whole Woman’s Health is the governing precedent for purposes of this stay application,” he wrote in a dissent. “I therefore will analyze the stay application under that precedent.”
Justice Kavanaugh said the majority had moved too fast in blocking the law and should have called for more information about its practical effect.
His approach was a variation on Chief Justice Roberts’s incrementalism and reluctance to overrule precedents outright. But abortion rights proponents remain wary of both justices, fearing that they will take a winding road toward a destination at which many more women, and especially poor ones, will find it hard to obtain abortions.
Chief Justice Roberts’s fullest judicial discussion of the power of precedent came in a concurring opinion in 2010 in the Citizens United decision, which overruled two campaign finance precedents. Departures from precedent, he wrote, require very good reasons.
But he added, quoting from earlier decisions, that the Supreme Court remained free to correct its worst errors.
“Stare decisis is neither an ‘inexorable command’ nor ‘a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision,’ especially in constitutional cases,” he wrote. “If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants.”
That passage suggests that there will be room, at the right time, for the chief justice to reconsider Roe, and to elaborate on what the Roberts doctrine means for that contested precedent.B:
六合拳开奖134期【心】【里】【没】【来】【由】【的】【有】【点】【心】【疼】。 【打】【开】【手】【机】，【里】【面】【有】【很】【多】【短】【信】，【还】【有】【很】【多】【未】【接】【来】【电】，【每】【一】【条】【都】【是】【江】【一】【博】【发】【过】【来】【的】。 “【姚】【姚】，【我】【回】【来】【了】，【一】【路】【上】【真】【的】【很】【累】。” “【一】【想】【到】【我】【将】【见】【到】【你】，【心】【里】【就】【没】【来】【由】【的】【开】【心】。” “【你】【有】【看】【到】【我】【发】【的】【信】【息】【吗】？【我】【给】【你】【买】【了】【一】【个】【礼】【物】。【你】【会】【原】【谅】【我】【吗】？” “【你】【是】【不】【是】【没】【有】【开】【机】，【我】【打】
【卫】【兵】【冲】【过】【去】，【扯】【出】【两】【个】【直】【角】【管】，【一】【个】【拉】【伸】【后】【递】【过】【来】，【一】【个】【自】【己】【拿】【着】。 “【长】【官】，【这】【个】【你】【看】！”【卫】【兵】【说】【道】。 【陆】【贤】【看】【了】【一】【眼】，【外】【边】【的】【景】【象】，【直】【接】【让】【陆】【贤】【浑】【身】【一】【震】。 “【啊】？！” 【陆】【贤】【惊】【呼】【一】【声】。 “【发】【生】【什】【么】【事】【了】！”【另】【一】【名】【卫】【兵】【跑】【上】【前】，【在】【同】【伴】【手】【中】【抢】【过】【另】【一】【个】【潜】【望】【镜】【观】【察】【口】，【看】【了】【一】【眼】【外】【部】。 “【干】【掉】
“【怎】【么】【了】？”【苏】【翊】【尘】【感】【受】【到】【她】【的】【颤】【抖】，【揽】【住】【她】【的】【肩】，【问】【着】。 【顾】【清】【安】【紧】【紧】【握】【住】【他】【的】【手】，【说】：“【勾】，【勾】【玉】【出】【事】【了】……【他】【的】【手】，【很】【疼】” 【到】【现】【在】，【她】【的】【脑】【海】【里】【还】【回】【荡】【着】【比】【赛】【时】【候】，【勾】【玉】【那】【一】【声】【抑】【制】【不】【住】【的】【嘶】【喊】。 【苏】【翊】【尘】【难】【得】【的】【皱】【起】【眉】【头】，【拉】【着】【顾】【清】【安】【到】【勾】【玉】【那】【里】。 【终】【于】，【大】【家】【也】【渐】【渐】【发】【觉】【到】【了】【不】【对】【劲】。 【欢】【呼】
【一】【时】【之】【间】，【整】【个】【喧】【闹】【嘈】【杂】【的】【大】【厅】，【在】【蒙】【尘】【的】【脑】【海】【里】，【变】【得】【不】【真】【实】【起】【来】。 【他】【仿】【佛】【被】【浸】【在】【水】【下】，【隔】【着】【一】【层】【水】【膜】【看】【着】【这】【个】【世】【界】。【眼】【前】【跌】【落】【地】【上】【的】【叔】【父】，【面】【前】【削】【断】【了】【叔】【父】【一】【条】【腿】【的】【寒】【墨】【竹】，【寒】【墨】【竹】【身】【边】【张】【牙】【舞】【爪】【冲】【过】【来】【的】【副】【将】，【以】【及】【周】【围】【浴】【血】【厮】【杀】【的】【人】【群】，【都】【变】【得】【迷】【幻】【起】【来】。【声】【音】【仿】【佛】【经】【过】【了】【水】【膜】【的】【过】【滤】，【变】【得】【瓮】【声】【瓮】【气】，【模】六合拳开奖134期“【三】【哥】，【我】【听】【说】【今】【天】【中】【午】【在】【沪】【西】【大】【旅】【社】【的】【抓】【捕】【行】【动】【失】【败】【了】……” “【出】【去】，【没】【规】【矩】！”【陈】【淼】【头】【也】【不】【抬】，【直】【接】【就】【冷】【喝】【一】【声】。 【吴】【天】【霖】【悻】【悻】【然】【转】【身】【出】【去】，【关】【上】【门】，【然】【后】【老】【老】【实】【实】【的】【伸】【手】【敲】【响】【了】【门】。 “【进】【来】。” “【三】【哥】，【我】【听】【说】……” “【我】【交】【代】【你】【的】【事】【情】【办】【妥】【了】【吗】？”【陈】【淼】【没】【等】【他】【继】【续】【往】【下】【说】，【就】【直】【接】【开】【口】【打】
（【搁】【置】【了】【好】【久】，【最】【后】【决】【定】，【这】【本】【书】【不】【写】【了】！【这】【是】【书】【的】【大】【纲】，【希】【望】【追】【更】【的】【读】【者】【可】【以】【看】【下】【去】！【谢】【谢】！） 【卷】【一】：【天】【变】【不】【足】【畏】 【秦】【情】【被】【林】【霸】【欺】【辱】，【秦】【风】【过】【去】【帮】【忙】，【结】【果】【被】【打】【倒】【在】【地】。 【秦】【风】【于】【是】【如】【森】【林】，【打】【野】【怪】【升】【级】【到】【了】【地】【万】【境】7【层】。 【出】【森】【林】【遇】【见】【别】【人】【讲】【四】【大】【门】【派】，【然】【后】【秦】【风】【在】【镇】【中】【大】【比】【战】【胜】【了】【林】【霸】。 【林】【家】【人】【不】
“【石】【陨】【学】【长】，【闫】【雪】【儿】【由】【我】【来】【送】【就】【好】【了】，【你】【还】【是】【忙】【你】【自】【己】【的】【事】【情】【吧】。”【彭】【繁】【琛】【瞧】【着】【石】【陨】【那】【一】【副】【献】【殷】【勤】【的】【嘴】【脸】，【他】【不】【高】【兴】【了】，【开】【口】【说】【道】。 【不】【管】【怎】【么】【说】【闫】【雪】【儿】【都】【是】【自】【己】【兄】【弟】【凌】【逸】【辰】【喜】【欢】【的】【人】，【凌】【逸】【辰】【没】【在】【这】【里】，【那】【我】【这】【个】【做】【兄】【弟】【的】【不】【可】【能】【让】【外】【人】【占】【了】【便】【宜】【去】。 【彭】【繁】【琛】【说】【着】，【就】【机】【敏】【地】【朝】【欧】【阳】【嘉】【朵】【使】【了】【使】【眼】【色】。 **
【第】362【章】【节】【约】【一】【点】【好】【吗】 【所】【以】【可】【以】【说】，【在】【这】【件】【事】【之】【后】，【有】【点】【好】【的】【感】【觉】，【伱】【们】【终】【于】【变】【成】【了】【那】【些】【讨】【厌】【它】【们】【的】【阿】【格】【里】【尼】【翁】【雷】【耶】【庞】【贝】***【热】【情】【的】【粉】【丝】【那】【些】【热】【情】【的】【粉】【丝】【现】【在】【急】【于】【除】【掉】【它】【们】。 【据】【说】【阿】【格】【里】【尼】【翁】【雷】【耶】【庞】【贝】***【输】【给】【了】【普】【拉】【塔】【尼】【亚】【斯】【布】【赖】【斯】***【甚】【至】【华】【斯】【兰】【德】【贝】【弗】【伦】【尤】【里】【乌】【斯】***，【但】【是】【它】【们】【们】【被】【巴】【西】【圣】