WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was "settled as a precedent." He declined to answer specific questions about abortion and voting rights, citing cases he could face on the high court.

The heart of the abortion ruling is "settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis," the concept that long-established rulings should be given extra weight, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee on the second day of his confirmation hearings.

President Bush's choice to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, Roberts focused on a 1992 Supreme Court ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, referring to that as a precedent-setting case in addition to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

In the Pennsylvania case, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold the core holdings of Roe v. Wade and ban states from outlawing most abortions. The court said states could impose restrictions on the procedure that do not impose an "undue burden" on women.

Story continues

advertisement

"It reaffirmed the central holding in Roe v. Wade," Roberts said.

Roberts answered questions about abortion through the prism of legal precedent but declined to answer specifically how he would rule if faced with the question of overturning Roe v. Wade.

Democrats pressed the appellate judge about his writings on civil rights while a young lawyer in the Reagan administration two decades ago. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., described some of those writings on voting rights as a "narrow, cramped and mean-spirited view" that failed to show a full appreciation of discrimination.

Roberts declined to discuss specific cases that might come before the court but called voting rights "the most precious rights we have as Americans."

That failed to assuage Kennedy, who spoke critically and at length about Roberts' writings. Kennedy was interrupted several times by committee chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, who told him to let Roberts speak.

Roberts said he supported an extension of the landmark 1965 voting rights law.

The nominee dismissed any suggestion that his Catholic faith would influence his decisions if he were confirmed to be the nation's 17th chief justice. The Roman Catholic Church strongly opposes abortion.

"There's nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedent of the court faithfully under the principles of stare decisis," Roberts said.

Stare decisis is Latin for "to stand by a decision" and legally translates into the doctrine that says courts are bound by previous decisions, or precedents, particularly when a case has been decided by a higher court.

Despite that principle, the current Supreme Court has been willing to revisit and overrule previous court decisions, on issues such as gay rights and the death penalty.

Questioned about rights of privacy, the appellate judge cited several amendments in the Bill of Rights and said, "I do think the right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways."

Specter, a moderate Republican who supports abortion rights, asked if the Roe v. Wade decision was a "super-duper precedent" in light of efforts to overturn it.

Roberts noted that the Supreme Court itself upheld the basics of Roe v. Wade in the 1992 Casey case.

"That, I think, is the decision that any judge in this area would begin with," Roberts said.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the committee, focused on the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress -- and Roberts' suggestion, in past writings, that favor the presidency and speak dismissively of the legislature.

After considerable discussion about a memo dealing with military benefits, the White House and Congress, Leahy simply asked if Congress has the power to declare war.

"Of course, the Constitution specifically gives the power to Congress," Roberts said.

Leahy also questioned Roberts about recent Bush administration documents on torture and interrogation, prompting another definitive statement from Roberts.

"No one is above the law and that includes the president," he said.

An abortion case will be taken up by the court this fall, but it does not directly deal with the right to an abortion. The Supreme Court's next term begins Oct. 3.

In 1992, Rehnquist wanted to use the Casey case to overturn Roe, but he was stymied by moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a bitter dissent then, and is likely to push the court to revisit the issue.

Troy Newman, leader of Operation: Rescue, said anti-abortion activists weren't surprised by Roberts' comments but would watch him closely.

"We're concerned about these statements, but the proof will come when it's time for him to rule on these cases as a justice," Newman said.

Abortion rights groups found little comfort in Roberts' answers. "John Roberts failed to state whether he believes the right to privacy includes a woman's right to choose as recognized in Roe v. Wade," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Roberts' opponents complained that he was ducking specific questions -- as they had expected.

"He's obviously playing a game of dodgeball," said Ralph Neas, head of the liberal People of the American Way.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, asked Roberts whether he was an originalist, a constructionist, a perfectionist or any of the oft-repeated legal definitions that analysts and activists apply to Supreme Court justices.

"I think, like most people, I resist the label. ... When pressed I prefer to be known as a modest judge. I appreciate the role of judge is limited," said Roberts, who said he tends to look at cases according to the facts and details and avoids an overarching judicial philosophy.

Roberts briefly answered questions about his unpaid work while a private attorney, including his assistance to a gay rights group in a Colorado case about discrimination. The group prevailed in what gay rights advocates consider one of their most important legal victories.

"I never turned down a request. I think it's right that if there had been something morally objectionable, I suppose I would have. But it was my view that lawyers don't stand in the shoes of their clients and that good lawyers can give advice and argue any side of a case," he said.