Tuesday, July 19, 2005
SCOTUS Watch: Quack, quack?
So, John Roberts.
It looks like Bush resisted poking the Dems in the eye with a sharp stick.
Since that's what He always does when he gets the chance, it seems like TreasonGate and/or His lame duck status has weakened him, and He's got to tack toward the middle.
Or appear to do so. The Department of Changing the Subject swings into action—On prime time
The early line on Roberts is that he's quiet and lawyerly, with a Souter-like lack of paper trail.
Then again, could Roberts be a submarine candidate? A stealth Scalia?
Could be. What Roberts said in his last confirmation hearing:
And why was he asked that?
Of course, it may be that a war crimes trial for Gitmo was uppermost in Bush's mind:
Yeah, maybe Bush has nominated a genuine, responsible conservative who hasn't been divinely guided to the revelation that what Christ wants is a rollback of FDR's New Deal.
Isn't it pretty to think so?
Every time, every single time, we give Bush the benefit of the doubt, we get burned. Maybe the Roberts nomination will be the exception. I doubt it.
NOTE Apparently, Roberts is practicing Catholic. That used to be fine, until some Catholic bishops started denying their U.S. Senator and Representive parishioners communion if they supported Roe. If Robert's bishop did that, would it affect Robert's rulings? Perhaps someone should ask him.
UPDATE Here's the Alliance for Justice paper on Roberts (from Kos). Nothing "extraordinary" here (yeah, I know the baseline has changed), though it is interesting how Robert's all of a sudden argues for a living Constitution when a strict interpretation might suggest that a corporation has obligations to its retired workers.
It looks like Bush resisted poking the Dems in the eye with a sharp stick.
Since that's what He always does when he gets the chance, it seems like TreasonGate and/or His lame duck status has weakened him, and He's got to tack toward the middle.
Or appear to do so. The Department of Changing the Subject swings into action—On prime time
The early line on Roberts is that he's quiet and lawyerly, with a Souter-like lack of paper trail.
Then again, could Roberts be a submarine candidate? A stealth Scalia?
Could be. What Roberts said in his last confirmation hearing:
Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
(via Newsday)
And why was he asked that?
Roberts did co-write a brief that stated, "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
Of course, it may be that a war crimes trial for Gitmo was uppermost in Bush's mind:
Roberts was part of the three-judge panel that handed the U.S. government a critical victory last Friday, ruling that the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could proceed.
(via Reuters)
Yeah, maybe Bush has nominated a genuine, responsible conservative who hasn't been divinely guided to the revelation that what Christ wants is a rollback of FDR's New Deal.
Isn't it pretty to think so?
Every time, every single time, we give Bush the benefit of the doubt, we get burned. Maybe the Roberts nomination will be the exception. I doubt it.
NOTE Apparently, Roberts is practicing Catholic. That used to be fine, until some Catholic bishops started denying their U.S. Senator and Representive parishioners communion if they supported Roe. If Robert's bishop did that, would it affect Robert's rulings? Perhaps someone should ask him.
UPDATE Here's the Alliance for Justice paper on Roberts (from Kos). Nothing "extraordinary" here (yeah, I know the baseline has changed), though it is interesting how Robert's all of a sudden argues for a living Constitution when a strict interpretation might suggest that a corporation has obligations to its retired workers.
