After President Obama met with Mexico's President Felipe Calderon at the White House May 19th, he later met with Arizona's governor Jan Brewer on June 3rd. Obama had previously referred to Arizona's recently signed lesgilation SB 1070 as 'misguided', and Brewer emerged from the private meeting with the president stating, in part, “We agreed to try to work together in order to find some solution...We know we’re not going to agree on certain issues until other issues are worked out... I explained to him exactly what my convictions were when I followed that though the legislature, to make absolutely sure that there was no racial profiling.” News outlets have reported that Mexicans are fleeing en masse from Arizona weeks before the immigration law goes into effect .If Obama had stated the Arizona's controversial law was "the settled law of the land", that would put to rest the notion that he was ready to challenge it in court.
In reality, Obama did not say that SB 1070 was' the settled law of the land', respecting the Arizona legislature's sovereign decision. Instead, the Obama administration will file suit to challenge the Arizona law.
My point of bringing up the phrase is to examine the term "______ fill-in-the-blank is the settled law of the land".
If someone is having a dispute, or disaggrement, and is going to take it to an adjudicator, or court, they would state that they have a conflict, a disagreement, and that it will be decided at a future time. If, however, they are pleased with the current situation as it stands and have no opposition to the status quo, they would therefore state that the matter is SETTLED.
John Roberts, the allegedly 'conservative pro-life Republican' appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by George Bush, stated that Roe V Wade is not only the settled law of the land, but "beyond that. It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes.“
For pro life Republicans to contort the conclusion that Roberts is the least bit interested in addressing or overturning Roe V Wade is wildly beyond naive and ignorant. Dr. John Willke, touted as a pro-life icon by Catholic Answers radio, argued just that point when I called their show a few weeks ago. In an absurd display of cowardice and intellectual dishonesty, 'Catholic Answers' then edited out my entire phone call from their archives; sending it down the memory hole.
Words mean something. For pro life republicans and libertarians to allege that people such as Roberts along with the Republican establishment would overturn Roe V Wade, is an absurd and baseless allegation with nothing to substanciate it.