NYT: SC Choice is Judge Anchored in Modern Law (in middle or on margin?)

[DeepModem Mom]

Bush's Supreme Court Choice Is a Judge Anchored in Modern Law
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: July 20, 2005

....Carefully chosen as they undoubtedly were, these were the words of someone deeply anchored in the trajectory of modern constitutional law, not of someone who felt himself on the sidelines throwing brickbats, nor of someone who felt called to a mission to change the status quo.

There are others, potential nominees whom the president might have chosen, who probably also feel a lump in the throat when they think about the Supreme Court, but it is caused by anger rather than reverence. That is not to say that Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, whom President Bush had offered as his models for a Supreme Court selection, do not respect the institution, but their stance is one of opposition to many currents of modern legal thought that the court's decisions reflect.

Now the question is whether Judge Roberts, if confirmed, will, like those two justices, commit himself to recapturing a distant constitutional paradise in which the court was faithful to the original intent of the framers or whether, like the justice he would succeed, he finds himself comfortably in the middle rather than at the margin.

His résumé suggests the latter, as does his almost complete lack of a paper trail. There are no flame-throwing articles or speeches, no judicial opinions that threaten established precedent, no visible hard edges.

To the extent that as a judge he has expressed a limited view of federal power, that is consistent with the views of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom he is being named to succeed, and would not change the balance on the court. He signed briefs as a Justice Department lawyer conveying the anti-abortion position of the first Bush administration, but he has given no indication of his personal or judicial views on abortion....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/national/20legal.html?hp&ex=1121918400&en=8f7eadf2245decd8&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[napi21]

1. I want to believe that reporter, it just scares me that it's the NY Times!

My instincts say that what he said is true, and I also realize there's no real way of knowing until he's on the SC and writes opinions!

[gratuitous]

2. Fascinating assertion by Linda Greenhouse

Too bad she forgot to include any facts to back it up.

Roberts doesn't have the gravitas to serve on the Supreme Court. He hasn't been on the bench long enough to develop a judicial philosophy, that much is apparent, and the Supreme Court isn't the place where a nominee is supposed to develop one. If Roberts is truly Supreme Court material, he'll have another chance, when he's had some more seasoning, and a sober and competent jurist would know that and turn down the President's offer.

Roberts looks like a power-hungry grasper, within inches of his goal.

[pansypoo53219]

3. his wife is

pro-life activist.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Interesting information, pp -- thanks. nt