Friday, July 29, 2005

The most intelligent voice of the African-American Community, Thomas Sowell, discusses the Senate's investigation into Roberts' personal "views."

"What makes all this a cheap farce is that the very Senators who demand to see confidential memoranda from John Roberts' days in the Justice Department know in advance that no administration of either party is likely to release such confidential material -- not if they ever expect people to speak candidly in the future when their advice is sought.

What the Senators and the country are entitled to know is how a judicial nominee regards his duty to respect the law as it is written -- especially the Constitution -- rather than vote according to his own "views," whether on abortion, religious symbols, or whatever.

Ideally, judges should respect both the Constitution and the legal precedents, for the same reason -- people rely on the law as it exists when they make decisions and commitments in their lives.

On the other hand, some of the precedents created by judicial activists more recently have gone so completely counter to the Constitution that it is a judgment call whether all of those precedents should continue to be followed. Judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to regard all precedents as set in stone forever.
Ann Coulter has, with good reason, lost faith in stealth Supreme Court nominees:

"Roberts would have been a fine candidate for a Senate in Democratic hands. But now we have 55 Republican seats in the Senate and the vice president to cast a deciding vote — and Son of Read-My-Lips gives us another ideological blind date.
Bush said "Trust me," and Republicans trust him. It shouldn't be difficult for conservatives to convince themselves that Roberts is our man. They've had practice convincing themselves of the same thing with Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter."
Dick Morris hits the nail on the head per usual:

"Has Bush fooled the left or the right? Will Roberts be the reliable pro-life vote that the Christian right hopes, or will he be the judicial conservative, respectful of precedent — including Roe — that the left hopes? We won’t know until after he takes his seat and casts his vote. But Bush has threaded his way through a minefield in selecting the most conservative judge who has already received recent Senate approval — and garnered a unanimous Democratic vote."

Thursday, July 28, 2005

David Limbaugh writes:

"To me, there is nothing wrong with asking Judge Roberts, "Do you believe the Court should see itself as result-oriented: establishing rights and remedies to address perceived wrongs, even if there is no reasonable constitutional authority to do so? Or do you believe, as you seemed to reveal in the now famous French fry case, that the judiciary should be passive and that no matter how great the perceived injustice the Court must not intervene to correct it in the absence of a sound constitutional basis for doing so?"
And, I think it's even proper for the follow-up questions to penetrate with greater specificity, such as asking whether the Court has overstepped its bounds in particular areas, like abortion, the Commerce Clause and the incorporation doctrine (making federal constitutional rights applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause)."
Limbaugh believes that Roberts is a "strict constructionist," but that he also understands the importance of judicial precedent when deciding a case. At the risk of putting words in his mouth, he seems to suggest that the right might want to be a little more aggressive at making sure that Judge Roberts is what he he seems to be... and avoid placing another David Souter on the court. The entire article is worth your time.
Though I appreciate Limbaugh's swagger, we must remember that we have Republican Senators from liberal states whose support we need to get Roberts confirmed. Too much information from the nominee might force them to choose between Roberts and their own re-election.
Pete's Pics

Rising talk-radio phenom Peter Heck posts some pretty funny pictures from the Washington D.C. 4th of July celebration.
Bush Lied?

Bryan Alexander writes a compelling and succinct response to the left's chant that the president lied about wmd.