James Fallows: John Roberts: the difference four years makes

[ginnyinWI]

John Roberts is now legislating from the bench:

Chief Justice-nominee Roberts, in his opening statement at his confirmation hearings in September, 2005:

"Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them.

"The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.

"But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.

"Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath."

Chief Justice Roberts last September, questioning Solicitor General Elena Kagan, during oral arguments in the Citizens United v Federal Election Commission corporate-funding case whose decision was announced yesterday (as reported by Stuart Taylor here):

" 'When corporations use other people's money to electioneer,' as Kagan explained, 'that is a harm not just to the shareholders themselves but a sort of a broader harm to the public,' because it distorts the political process to inject large sums of individuals' money in support of candidates whom they may well oppose.

"Roberts sharply challenged this line of argument. 'Isn't it extraordinarily paternalistic,' he asked, 'for the government to take the position that shareholders are too stupid to keep track of what their corporations are doing and can't sell their shares or object in the corporate context if they don't like it? ... ' "We the government have to protect you naive shareholders." '

"Kagan responded that 'in a world in which most people own stock through mutual funds through retirement plans ... , they have no choice. I think it's very difficult for individual shareholders to be able to monitor what each company they own assets in is doing.' "

Of course Kagan's response is the practical and real-world one...

More at: http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/john_roberts_the_difference_fo.php

[AndyA]

1. There's no doubt about it: John Roberts lied to Congress to get the job.

He's legislating from the bench, making the laws to suit his opinions instead of accepting long established laws.

Shame on the man. He's a liar, and should be removed as he's not fit to hold this position. He is not trustworthy, and he's abusing the authority of his position.

[n2doc]

2. Would one expect anything different from Bushco? n/t

[ginnyinWI]

4. what an awful legacy he's left behind.

He still has the power to do damage--and the power to make me really mad! (And here I thought those days were over.)

[bemildred]

3. Did you ever notice Roberts has shifty eyes? nt