Andy writes:

Roger reduces to a tautology the assertion that "Roe v. Wade is settled law." Under Roger's view, the word "settled" adds nothing to the sentence.

It obviously does convey a strong message: the speaker doesn't think or want Roe v. Wade to be overturned.

Roger writes, "Saying a law is settled says nothing about whether it might be changed in the future."

Quite the contrary, saying something is "settled" means it isn't going to change. E.g., "settle down", "immigrants settled in this area", "sediment settled at the bottom of the lake", etc.

There is no chance that a speaker who declares that "Roe is settled law," as Gonzales apparently did at CNP, will vote to overturn it. Bush needs to know that he will be held politically accountable for appointing someone like that, as I think Bush the First was. Moreover, statistically, a judge content with Roe v. Wade will likely vote liberal on many other issues, as Souter has.

No, the word settled adds plenty. There are other laws that I consider unsettled. Eg, to use John's example, I think the War Powers Act is not settled law. Some people say that it gave the Pres. powers that he wouldn't otherwise have, and that the limits on presidential power are void because they are unconstitutional. Others say just the opposite. Presidents and Congressmen have very different interpretations. No court has really decided the matter, and it is not clear that anyone would pay attention to the courts on the matter anyway. It is unsettled law.

I don't think that saying Roe is settled law conveys an endorsement of Roe. It is merely acknowledging the obvious facts. It is like a Democrats who concedes that Bush won the 2000 election, but might want to vote him out at the next opportunity.

The people who deny that Roe is settled law are like the Democrats who refuse to concede that Bush won the 2000 election.

Andy writes:

>Roger reduces to a tautology the assertion that "Roe v. Wade is settled law." Under Roger's view, the word "settled" adds nothing to the sentence.

Roger replied, "No, it adds plenty. There are other laws that I consider unsettled. Eg, to use John's example, I think the War Powers Act is not settled law ...."

That's not analogous. Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court decision, while the War Powers Act has never been tested before the high court.

Declaring a Supreme Court decision to be "settled law" means that the speaker doesn't expect or want it to change. That position is unacceptable to millions who voted for Bush. If that is Bush's view, then middle class Catholics should return to the Democratic Party and evangelicals should stay home.

Liza wrote, "I feel certain that John Ashcroft would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned even though he said something like 'Roe v. Wade is settled law' at his confirmation hearing. I agree with Roger on this issue."

Ashcroft also testified: "I believe Roe v. Wade, as an original matter, was wrongly decided." Did Gonzales said that before CNP? I doubt it.

At any rate, post-2000 Ashcroft is very different from pre-2000 Ashcroft. Liza's feelings are based on pre-2000 Ashcroft, but that disappeared as the Carnahan race humiliated him. Ashcroft has done almost nothing conservative since. It's a tragedy, because it wasn't Ashcroft's fault that Missouri moved to the Left. The NRA also was humiliated by Missouri's surprising shift Left, and it hasn't been the same since on the conceal-and-carry referenda.