Trustee Todd Zywicki ’88 looks from a legal standpoint at whether Senators can fairly question Supreme Court nominee John Roberts about Roe v. Wade in hypothetical future cases.
His conclusion:
The key point here, though, is that there is a big difference between whether to uphold precedent, versus deciding whether a case was correctly decided in the first place. The former seems to be exactly the sort of question that can’t be answered in the abstract. Given that, I don’t see how Judge Roberts could meaningfully answer that particular question based on the lack of a solid factual record.
Be the first to comment on "Zywicki on Roberts and Roe"