Sifting Old, New Writings For Roberts's Philosophy (WaPo)

[CornField]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082001325.html

John G. Roberts Jr. was keen to correct a proposed letter for President Ronald Reagan's signature that said the federal courts have "earned and enjoyed the confidence of the American people . . . for impartiality, independence, and fairness."

Then a young White House lawyer, Roberts wrote in 1983 that in reality "the federal judiciary has been viewed by the American people with active distrust from the very beginning." Other writings by Roberts from this period suggest he might just as well have added: "particularly by me."

Just 28 years old, Roberts was part of a cadre of young conservatives attracted to work in Washington with the ambition of righting what they considered to be a series of judicial errors under liberal governance that had helped set the country on a political course they didn't like.

(selection of writings on various issues available at site)

[Trillo]

1. So the reason some neocons don't like him is his private case

for the rights of gays, which curiously goes against much else of what he's written about equal rights, which he's actively minimized as much as possible. He has argued for prayer in school.

The bit about minimizing death row inmates appeals is revealing, given that record numbers of convictions have been overturned on DNA evidence in the last 15 years. Is he for the deaths of innocents in the "guessing" game of the SC? If he considers a judge's role a guessing game when it comes to lives, is he a judicial activist? Its okay for the cops to break the rules in their evidence game?

He doesn't sound very liberal to me, except for the one private case for gay rights, which looks suspect against the rest of his opinions about equal rights.

[CornField]

2. I don't find him remotely moderate

Like you've said, that one case looks like a brain fart when compared to his other notes on equal rights.