glosas

En su segundo día de comparecencia ante el Comité Judicial del Senado, el juez Alito tuvo que responder de nuevo a preguntas indirectas sobre la cuestión del aborto. El senador Specter, presidente del Comité, republicano moderado y partidario del aborto, trataba de que Alito hiciera alguna declaración que permitiera esperar respeto al precedente de “Roe vs. Wade“. Lo más lejos que había llegado el Juez Roberts en las sesiones de confirmación de noviembre fue a la afirmación de que Roe es “settled law”.

Specter formuló la pregunta de un modo indirecto. Se refirió a la sentencia del caso Casey (1992) que reafirmó el precedente de Roe. Casey había sido descrita por algunos jueces federales como un “super precedent” ¿Considera Alito que dicha descripción es correcta? La ingeniosa y evasiva respuesta del candidato al Tribunal Supremo incluyó el concepto de “super duper precedent”, provocando la risa de los asistentes.

Transcribimos a continuación la parte más interesante del diálogo:

SPECTER: Judge Alito, the commentators have characterized Casey as a super-precedent. Judge Luttig, in the case of Richmond Medical Center, called the Casey decision “super stare decisis.”
And, in quoting from Casey, Judge Luttig pointed out the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and, once again, reaffirmed.
And then, in support of Judge Luttig’s conclusion that Casey was super stare decisis, he refers to Stenberg v. Carhart and quotes the Supreme Court, saying, “We shall not revisit these legal principles.”
Now, that’s a pretty strong statement for the court to make that we shall not revisit the principles upon which Roe was founded.
And the concept of super stare decisis or super-precedent arises, as the commentators have characterized it, by a number of different justices appointed by a number of different judges over a considerable period of time.
Do you agree that Casey is a super-precedent or a super stare decisis, as Judge Luttig said?
ALITO: Well, I personally would not get into categorizing precedents as super-precedents or super-duper precedents or any…
SPECTER: Did you say super-duper?
ALITO: Right.
(LAUGHTER)
SPECTER: Good. I like that.
(LAUGHTER)
ALITO: Any sort of categorization like that sort of reminds me of the size of the laundry detergent in the supermarket.
(LAUGHTER)
ALITO: I agree with the underlying thought that when a precedent is reaffirmed, that strengthens the precedent. And when the Supreme Court says that we are not going…
SPECTER: How about being reaffirmed 38 times?
ALITO: Well, I think that when a precedent is reaffirmed, each time it’s reaffirmed that is a factor that should be taken into account in making the judgment about stare decisis.
And when a precedent is reaffirmed on the ground that stare decisis precludes or counsels against reexamination of the merits of the precedent, then I agree that that is a precedent on precedent.
Now, I don’t want to leave the impression that stare decisis is an inexorable command because the Supreme Court has said that it is not. But it is a judgment that has to be based — taking into account all the factors that are relevant and that are set out in the Supreme Court’s cases.

Tags: aborto, Alito, precedente, Roberts, Roe vs Wade, Specter, Supremo USA

Technorati : View blog reactions
Posted at : January 23rd, 2006 - 4:12 pm
Filed under : USA
Navigate : Previous post / Next post