“the court upheld a federal anti-abortion law, cut back on the free-speech rights of public school students, strictly enforced procedural requirements for bringing and appealing cases, and limited school districts’ ability to use racially conscious measures to achieve or preserve integration”.

Los grupos son claros. En torno al Presidente Roberts suelen votar Alito, Scalia, y Thomas. En el otro lado están Stevens, Breyer, Souter y Ginsburg. El voto decisivo ha estado este año en el Juez Kennedy, que se ha situado en el papel de “swinger” que solía desempeñar O’Connor. En palabras del profesor Calabresi, que fue pasante (clerk) del Juez Scalia:

“Kennedy is very much the median justice now, as Justice O’Connor was, and he is to her right,”

“Classifying and assigning school-children according to a binary conception of race is an extreme approach (…) The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race”.

El voto disidente fue redactado por Breyer, al que se unieron Ginsburg, Souter y Stevens. Se trata de un largo y vibrante alegato de 77 páginas en el que el veterano magistrado afirma (resumen del New York Times) que:

The decision was a “radical” step away from settled law and would strip local communities of the tools they need, and have used for many years, to prevent resegregation of their public schools. Predicting that the ruling would “substitute for present calm a disruptive round of race-related litigation,” he said, “This is a decision that the court and the nation will come to regret.”

Cisco Systems Inc., fundada en 1984 por un grupo de ingenieros de Stanford, fue una de las empresas decisivas en el desarrollo de los protocolos IP que universalizaron la primitiva red que dio origen a Internet. En la actualidad, Cisco es el primer proveedor mundial de infraestructura de redes y tiene cerca de 50.000 empleados.

“El Gobierno considera que el atentado de hoy es absolutamente incompatible con el alto el fuego permanente que la propia ETA declaró hace nueve meses. Nada hay más contrario a los principios y condiciones establecidas en la Resolución del Parlamento de mayo de 2005, y que reiteré en mi declaración del mes de junio, que este atentado. En consecuencia, y como no se dan las condiciones que establecimos, he ordenado suspender todas las iniciativas para suspender este diálogo”.

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.

I want to express our sincere appreciation for the exemplary way in wich you have performed the special responsabilities of your high office, with particular emphasis on the efficiency, good humor and absolute impartiality that you have consistently displayed when presiding at our conferences.

En 1971 Richard Nixon designó al joven fiscal Rehnquist como Magistrado del Tribunal. El nombramiento trataba de iniciar el progresivo desmantelamiento del legado “liberal” del Tribunal Warren, del que aún permanecían prestigiosos Jueces como William Douglas, William Brennan Jr. y Thurgood Marshall. Entre esas señeras figuras del bando “liberal” Rehnquist se encontró con cierta frecuencia como el único voto disidente “conservador”. En 1986 murió Warren Burger, y Reagan designó a Rehnquist como Chief Justice.