Assisted suicide quote from Roberts revealing, analysts say

[deadparrot]

WASHINGTON - John G. Roberts had no reason to be guarded in 1997, when he was asked on a TV news show about a recent Supreme Court decision in an assisted-suicide case.

But he didn't talk about moral absolutes or the sanctity of life. He didn't even hint at his personal views on the subject. Roberts, then a lawyer in private practice, framed the issue in terms of limits on judicial power and deference to the public will as expressed by legislators. For him, it was a simple question of who gets to decide.

"I think it's important not to have too narrow a view of protecting personal rights," Roberts said on PBS' "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." "The right that was protected in the assisted-suicide case was the right of the people through their legislatures to articulate their own views on the policies that should apply in those cases of terminating life, and not to have the court interfering in those policy decisions. That's an important right."

The remarks by Roberts - who's now President Bush's nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court - are revealing, court watchers say. They speak to principles of judicial restraint and non-intervention that are evident in much of his record. Roberts sees limits on federal authority not just as a stricture carefully written into the Constitution, but also as an affirmative protection of individual rights.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/krwashbureau/20050726/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_scotus_roberts_wa

Interesting. He's a nut, to be sure, and this quote is probably not indicative of anything, but it's interesting nonetheless.

ETA: Sorry if this has been posted before; my search function is acting up slightly, and I didn't see anything about it, but that doesn't mean much, as I've erred many times before. :)

[Xipe Totec]

1. Probably means he wants to overturn Roe v Wade

and let each state decide what their state policy should be.

Not judging, just extrapolating from his statement.

[DuaneBidoux]

9. And I'm not sure that it would be all that bad after all...

Let states like NY, NJ, California, Washington go out of their way to protect and extend the rights of women. These states will NEVER go back. In the meantime let the third world states do what ever the hell they want. I'm tired of third world states like Alabama and Arkansas dragging the rest of the country down. I've never been more in favor of states rights than lately when I realize that the whole country is being dragged down by backwater states like the two described above.

[jsamuel]

2. "analysts say"

[ixion]

3. Yeah, he said that in 97... at the same time the pugs were chanting states

rights, fiscal restraint and small government.

Now they're opposed to states rights, want a strong centralized government and spend money like druken sailors, on top of that they have created the largest government bureaucracy in history, and violated the Bill of Rights at every turn.

I'm sorry, but I have no reason to think that anything these reptiles might say is in any way mapped to a particular belief. They believe what is necessary for the moment, or so it would seem.

[sandnsea]

4. My thought exactly

These people say whatever is politically expedient at the moment and always have. Can't believe a word of it.

[wakeme2008]

5. A nut

" people through their legislatures to articulate their own views on the policies"

Being if your state legislature passed something it must be good for you and I will not do anything about it.

[deminks]

6. Ahh, but what would he have done with Terri Schiavo?

You know, since he says the SCOTUS judges don't have to be bound and all to precident or previous statements.

Just asking.

[RoyGBiv]

7. A rather broad statement ...

And, it has interesting, and terrifying, implications.

In 1954 a sizable proportion of the articulated view of the people through their legislatures dictated that segregated schools were both morally right and constitutional. If his logic is absolute (which I doubt based on my presumption of what he'd do with a Shiavo-like case) this means that not only was Roe v Wade decided incorrectly in his view, but so was Brown v Board of Education and various other decisions of a similar vein.

Nice guy. Can't wait to see him on the Court. :sarcasm:

[CAcyclist]

8. Why Are They Trying To Sell Roberts to Us So Hard?

This is part of a massive propaganda effort and I do not like it. This one interview does not tell us what the reporter is trying to tell us it means. It could mean a lot of things or nothing.

I resent when the reporters insert spin in what should be a straight-forward news story.

[Rex]

10. He's gonna be another Scalia.

Wait until he gets on the court. :crazy: