Sen Specter: In our initial conversation, you talked about the stability and humility in the law.
Would you agree with those articulations of the principles of stare decisis, as you had contemplated them, as you said you looked for stability in the law?
Roberts: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would. I would point out that the principle goes back even farther than Cardozo and Frankfurter. Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, said that, To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the judges, they need to be bound down by rules and precedents.
So, even that far back, the founders appreciated the role of precedent in promoting evenhandedness, predictability, stability, adherence of integrity in the judicial process.
Justice Samuel Alito testified similarly. You can read the pack of apparent lies he fed his Senatorial questioners about stare decicis here, but just for openers there’s this on Roe vs. Wade:
The things that I said in the 1985 memo were a true expression of my views at the time from my vantage point as an attorney in the Solicitor General's office. But that was 20 years ago and a great deal has happened in the case law since then. Thornburg was decided and Webster and then Casey and a number of other decisions. So the stare decisis analysis would have to take account of that entire line of case law.
Sounds like he, too, swore under oath that stare decicis would be a guiding principle for him, right?
But once seated on the bench, the unspoken The Star-Ledger in New Jersey reported,
"With a stroke of the pen, five justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy," declared Fred Wertheimer, president of the Washington-based government-watchdog group Democracy 21.
Two of those five were Roberts and Alito, who under oath testified they would respect stare decicis.
And the bad news created by these liars keeps happening. This morning the New York Times suggested in in an editorial concerning a case in which moneyed interest won a case objecting to their political opponents obtaining matching funds that there is more to come:
It seems likely that the Roberts court will use this case to continue its destruction of the laws and systems set up in recent decades to reduce the influence of big money in politics. By the time it is finished, millionaires and corporations will have regained an enormous voice in American politics, at the expense of candidates who have to raise money the old-fashioned way and, ultimately, at the expense of voters.
It’s time to throw the perjurers out of the court for these and similar high crimes and misdemeanors. If Congress (and then the Senate) fail to act, most of their members will not be in office come the next election. With a precious few exceptions, there is always somebody out there with more money to spend than you have.
So will you speak up Mr. or Ms. Congressional Represenative? And you, Senator?