Bush is going around the country insisting John Roberts is a strict constructionist -- if so, that makes Roberts WAY out of the mainstream of judicial beliefs. That makes him someone who refuses to respect previous Court rulings, precedent or settled law in favor of fringe philosophical beliefs that insist we haven't learned anything in the last 230 years -- ie. a judicial activist, the very sort of person most Americans don't want.
How does Bush know this? It isn't in Roberts' limited record. Did Bush ask Roberts? Did Roberts tell Bush? Did Roberts indicate so through third parties or some other way? Is he or is he not a strict constructionist? If so, how will that impact his voting on Roe v Wade? Isn't it impossible for a strict constructionist to uphold that ruling? If Bush doesn't know this for a fact, why is he lying to the American people? These questions cannot be sidestepped or dismissed as intrusive. They go to the heart of what sort of justice Roberts would be.
Sen. Durbin, for one, is unimipressed.
Mr. Durbin's initial response to the nominee on Tuesday was not even lukewarm.In other words, no free passes anymore for nominees who want to pretend they have no opinion on landmark Supreme Court rulings. Speak up or head for the door.
"The president had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor," the senator said on Tuesday, alluding to the justice Judge Roberts would replace. "Instead, by putting forward John Roberts's name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process...."
The senator has said he voted against Judge Roberts two years ago because the nominee was not sufficiently responsive to questions. Today, Mr. Durbin told The Associated Press, "If he is open and honest, I think it will go a long way."
So lots of questions for Scotty tomorrow -- after we're done pounding him on Rove. And everyone remember -- you can't be a strict constructionist and uphold Roe v Wade. You can't be a strict constructionist and believe in privacy rights. (So what if the govt wants to comb through your bank records. If you want privacy, you'll have to pass a Constitutional amendment.) You can't be a strict constructionist and overturn sodomy laws -- so if states want to throw 20 million people into jail just for being gay, that's ok. If you don't like it, you'll have to pass laws state by state or through a Constitutional amendment.
So if that's Roberts -- someone who believe the right to choose MUST be overturned, that the states can throw millions of people into jail because they're gay, that the fed govt has no right to make certain our air is pure and our water clean -- is that the sort of Supreme Court justice the American people want? Remember, this is BUSH saying that's the sort of justice Roberts would be. And he should know better than anyone else.
