comsc US Politics | AMERICAblog News: More On John Roberts
Join Email List | About us | AMERICAblog Gay
Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff

More On John Roberts

| Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK

Jeffrey Rosen says that the John Roberts he interviewed three years ago didn't appear to be an ideologue or angry -- the way Scalia and Thomas are -- holding out the slim hope that Roberts could be this Bush's Souter. Wishful thinking, maybe, but Rosen also suggests some tough lines of inquiry to get insight into Roberts' philosophy.

Mario Cuomo uses a USA Today op-ed to denounce ANYONE who tries to stack the courts with activists to achieve goals (like overturning Roe V Wade) they can't accomplish through the Congress and states.

Most political analysts believe that President Bush, by nominating Judge John Roberts, seeks to put on the Supreme Court a justice who will help achieve significant changes in laws through judicial decisions that the political branches of our government have failed to deliver. That would include limitations on abortion and the separation of church and state.
That sounds like Bush, don't it? And what Bush wants sure sounds like an activist judge to me.

Laurence Tribe weighs in via a USA Today article, saying that he too hasn't seen Roberts as a firebrand. (Hey, none of this means one shouldn't examine him extremely closely before making up your mind, but it's better than hearing your worst fears confirmed, isn't it?)
"That makes the (Senate confirmation) hearings all the more important," says Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe. "He doesn't have a long history of writings," as had Robert Bork, the former appeals court judge rejected for the high court in 1987.

"His appearance of decency and friendliness is real. I do think that his substantive philosophy, as much as I see it expressed, raises questions that require exploration."

While Tribe emphasizes the need to learn Roberts' views, he says the nominee does not appear to be a crusader. "I don't think John Roberts is putting on a gladiator suit as he marches toward the court," says Tribe.
And the American people in a poll quite reasonably say, hey, we need more info.
76% said they needed more information before they could decide whether his views were "mainstream."

74% felt it would be appropriate to ask Roberts about abortion at the hearings.
Guess what, the Dems are right in line with the American people. Let's take a a careful look at his (limited) record and hear what he has to say. Doesn't mean they won't bring down fire and brimstone if he proves to be fringe.

Why does Bush think the American people are stupid and wrong to want more information (meaning Roberts can't play dumb and pretend he has no opinion on landmark Supreme Court cases) and why does Bush think the American people are stupid and wrong to think asking about abortion is perfectly ok?

blog comments powered by Disqus