Read My Lips: No New Liberals
The relevant question for a prospective justice, and it can be asked properly either by a president or a senator, is: "What, in your view, is the legal force of a Supreme Court opinion?" If Roberts believes that Supreme Court opinions are law of some kind, all is lost.
Now comes the news that Roberts says he respects "precedent" -- which is another way of saying: We can count on Roberts to uphold the court's previous unconstitutional findings.
More criticism of prospective Supreme Court Justice Roberts. I have to say that I share her opinion, just nominate Tony Perkins (the head of Family Research Council) and let's start arguing about the issues.
With Roberts we look at a meager helping of decisions and try to make vague guesses as to what he will do as a judge. His nomination will turn into an argument about procedural formalities (not turning over documents) that will put Republicans on the defensive in the media rather than argue about recent decisions like to communist "take your property for a wealthy developer" decision where our side has the support of the American people.
2 comments:
nice hit on the "precident" issue.
also it is now known that Roberts volunteered to help the gay activists overthrow the Colorado version of Oregon's measure 9.
the three judges that voted against Roberts? Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.
well now we know that Roberts is to the left of Rehnquist and really nowhere near the kind of justice of Scalia and Thomas. The two types Bush PROMISED us in the capaign.
This is just another example of why we should NEVER doubt Ann Coulter!
Post a Comment