Roberts Appears Open to New Interpretations(distances from Scalia,Thomas)

[DeepModem Mom]

LAT: Roberts Appears Open to New Interpretations
By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — Chief justice nominee John G. Roberts Jr. carefully avoided taking sides on many issues Wednesday, but he went out of his way at his Senate confirmation hearing to put some distance between himself and justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — the Supreme Court's two staunchest conservatives.

And the issue was a basic one, with possibly great import for the future: How should a high court justice interpret the Constitution?

Scalia and Thomas proudly call themselves "originalists." They say the Constitution should be interpreted strictly, based on its literal words and its original history.

Like other conservatives, they shun the notion of a "living Constitution." They say their approach is faithful to the Constitution as it was written in 1787 and amended since then. Scalia says, only half-joking, that he believes in a "dead Constitution."

This look to the past leaves no room to consider such contemporary concepts as a right to die or equal rights for gays.

Roberts pointedly said Wednesday that he disagreed with this narrow originalist approach and would apply the Constitution in light of today's concerns and understandings....


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-legal15sep15,0,3023039.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[mzteris]

1. If Thomas believes this

"Scalia and Thomas proudly call themselves "originalists." They say the Constitution should be interpreted strictly, based on its literal words and its original history."

Then shouldn't he just shuck off those robes and get back in the field house and bind himself to an owner?


:banghead:

[nickinSTL]

2. hmm, this should increase conservatives' concerns

re: Roberts

Makes me wonder if Roberts might not be as bad as we fear...

Not holding my breath, and his refusal to answer a lot of questions could go either way...and doesn't make me inclined to believe it, but...

Maybe he's getting the job more based on loyalty to Bush than conservative credentials...

Bush seems big on loyalty, after all.

[merwin]

5. Remember, once he gets the job he can make whatever decisions

he wants without fear of getting fired from this administration.

That can be a good thing or a bad thing, but he's definately not the worst pick that Bush could have made.

Of course he's going to pick a conservative. That's his right, since he's (technically) the president. I think we should be happy that Roberts has the potential of being moderate.

[lyonn]

8. Would a Justice Souder (sp?) be too much to wish for?

G.W. tries to outdo his daddy at all cost. This nominee will be difficult to object to since he has the pleasant demeanor, smarts and doesn't commit. His papers from daddy's time in office has been banned from the hearings so, what can a dem. do? Fillibuster doesn't seem at all likely. So Robert's can satisfy the right and keep the left in the dark by his nothing comments. Now, if he were as open as he claims when it comes to deciding the law and constitution then it appears there could be a "sliver" of a chance he is another Justice Souder, otherwise we may have worse than Rhinquest (sp).

[pnorman]

3. Roberts was, and no doubt still is an active Bush partisan.

Elsewhere on DU, I saw mention that he was in favor of "preeminence of the Presidency"; something counter to the "Balance of Powers" most authentic republicans generally espouse. If correct, he should be GRILLED on that. Can anyone here provide further info on this subject?

pnorman

[kestrel91316]

4. Once he is on the court, I have no doubt he will be talked to by the

other justices, and they will straighten him out on trivial matters like the BALANCE OF POWER. He is going to be a student there for a while, in spite of being chief justice, I think.

Hasn't he only been a judge for 2 years. What a ROOKIE!

[Demeter]

6. With What Army?

The ranking Egotist just died--there isn't going to be one bold enough to tell Roberts, Bush's Golden Boy, anything. They're all in league, anyway.

We are royally screwed.

[pnorman]

7. Perhaps, but his appointment is SCOUTMASTER.

If confirmed, he'll probably listen most closely to his "benefactor" (or the gang behind him). Of his "juniors", Scalia & Thomas might be his closest chums. I seriously think that if the Democrats do a "Lieberman" on this, they'll loooong regret it.

pnorman

[lyonn]

9. Agree, preeminence is a Big problem

if he really goes for that.

[Baconfoot]

10. It's a living document because the needs of his buddies are ever shifting

I trust this guy about as far as I trust anybody Bush II would nominate for anything - not at all.

The inner circle of this administration has made it their "philosophy" to say whatever is expedient at a given moment rather than to say the truth. Sometimes, of course, these two things coincide. I think that's the case here with Roberts' distancing himself from Scalia and Thomas. Now there's a tiny bit of documented evidence that Roberts might be more moderate than some, such as myself, have thought. That ought to be enough to squelch any budding real opposition. And it happens to be true that to be a friend of the Bushies you will have to treat the constitution as a living document. This is because other than selfishness the Bushies have no real philosophy. It's hard to be consistent when the only thing really moving you is selfishness. And, well, you can't abuse anything quite so much and in so satisfactory a manner as a living thing or living system. Scalia and Thomas might SAY what they like about their judicial philosophies, but they have each "treated the constitution as a living document" (to be abused) in quite a few instances in the past. Bush v. Gore is only one such instance.