Roe v. Roberts

Many of you readers have probably already seen this analysis by Media Matters in regards to Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts, but it is a crucial argument of why he should NOT be confirmed by the Senate (snippet):

During initial coverage of President Bush's nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court, many media outlets have cited Roberts's pledge at his 2003 appellate court nomination hearing to "fully and faithfully apply" Roe v. Wade as the "settled law of the land" as evidence that he would vote to uphold the 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion if confirmed to the Supreme Court. But the suggestion that Roberts's previous description of Roe as "settled law" signals anything about how he would vote if confirmed to the highest court is incorrect. As an appellate court judge, the position to which he was "applying" in 2003 when he pledged to follow the law, Roberts is bound to adhere to Supreme Court precedent or face possible reversal on appeal. But as a Supreme Court justice, he would be in a position to vote to overturn Roe, or any other Supreme Court decision with which he disagreed, no matter how "settled." In the words of The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), the upholding of binding precedent "is required of lower-court judges," and therefore Roberts's comment "seems to leave open the possibility that he could vote to overturn Roe as a high-court justice."