You have permission to edit this article.
Edit
Commentary: Why Roberts stuck with precedent in the abortion case
AP

Commentary: Why Roberts stuck with precedent in the abortion case

{{featured_button_text}}
People rally in front of the United States Supreme Court as arguments are heard in Russo v. June Medical Services LLC on March 4, 2020 in Washignton, D.C. The case was brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights challenging a Louisiana law designed to close women's health care clinics and restrict access to abortion services.

People rally in front of the United States Supreme Court as arguments are heard in Russo v. June Medical Services LLC on March 4, 2020 in Washignton, D.C. The case was brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights challenging a Louisiana law designed to close women's health care clinics and restrict access to abortion services. (Brian Cahn/Zuma Press/TNS)

Commentators have been busy trying to discern what Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was up to when he joined the Supreme Court's four liberals Monday in striking down a Louisiana abortion law virtually identical to a Texas statute the court overturned in 2016.

Was he cynically voting to save the Republican Party from the political fallout of an anti-abortion ruling? Or maybe a concern for the court's legitimacy led him to act hypocritically, genuflecting at the altar of precedent despite the fact that he himself has voted to overrule prior decisions such as a 2018 case in which the court reversed a 41-year-old precedent that allowed unions to collect "fair share fees" from non-members.

Or was Roberts signaling that he might be open to overruling Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the "essential holding" of Roe vs. Wade. (Slate's Mark Joseph Stern suggested that Roberts' opinion weakened a standard the court had set in the 2016 Texas case for deciding when a restriction imposed an "undue burden" on the right to abortion.)

Whatever Roberts' supposed ulterior motives, his decision can be explained by the fact that he wanted to keep his word.

At his confirmation hearings in 2005, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee that overruling a precedent causes a "jolt" to the legal system.

Roberts was responding to a question from Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a pro-choice Republican. (Specter later switched to the Democratic Party.) Specter, who referred to Roe vs. Wade as a "super-duper" precedent, was satisfied enough by Roberts' reply to vote for his confirmation, as did 22 Democratic senators.

The Louisiana law at stake in Monday's decision, which required physicians performing abortions to have admitting privilege at a nearby hospital, was virtually identical to the Texas law the court struck down in a 2016 case called Whole Women's Health vs. Hellerstedt.

Roberts dissented in that case and on Monday said that he still thought it was wrongly decided. But he went on: "The question today however is not whether Whole Woman's Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case."

He continued: "The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana's law cannot stand under our precedents."

It's hard to imagine a bigger jolt to the legal system than a repudiation of a precedent that is only four years old involving essentially the same piece of legislation. Roberts would have looked ridiculous if he hadn't voted as he did - and the court would have as well.

Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com

0
0
0
0
0

Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

It can be hard to remember here in the grasp of the coronavirus pandemic, and amid President Donald Trump's persistent displays of arrogant incompetence, that this whole Trump Era is at heart one massive grift. The most recent entry: a report that Trump financial backer and current ambassador to Great Britain, Robert Wood Johnson IV, made inquiries at Trump's request into whether the British ...

Chris Wallace of Fox News is getting justifiably positive reviews for his persistent questioning of President Donald Trump in a long interview that aired on Sunday. But I wish he had pressed further in one exchange. Wallace asked Trump if he would accept the outcome of the November election - by implication, asking the president if he would accept losing. Twice Trump refused to make such a ...

As the nation prepares to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment and looks back on the impact of women throughout the last century, we should remember one woman who broke not just gender barriers but racial barriers, and influenced the course of the nation: Mildred Jefferson. Dr. Jefferson was a bona fide pro-life icon. A brilliant, Black, Harvard-educated surgeon, she helped ...

In recent weeks, American banks have denounced systemic racism and pledged support to Black lives. Yet their practices during this pandemic and their role in distributing money from the $660 billion Paycheck Protection Program show how systemic racism is embedded in their business model. Last week, the Trump administration finally disclosed the names of many companies that received forgivable ...

We have been asking the wrong question as we consider dipping our toes into new activities during the coronavirus pandemic: Is it safe? We are looking for a yes or no - a binary answer that harks back to our pre-pandemic lives. Instead, we should evaluate our encounters objectively based on some simple factors that place exposure on a risk spectrum. If we do, we will consolidate our successes ...

The Washington Redskins came to the realization - albeit belatedly - that doing the right thing is more important than clinging to archaic norms and has finally agreed to change its name after years of protests. That evolving mindset must now extend to schools and other institutions that are still exploiting live animals as mascots - a relic of an unenlightened past. Is there any animal more ...

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

Topics

News Alerts

Breaking News