What I am afraid of-re: Roberts

[EstimatedProphet]

Roberts' interviews showed he really doesn't understand the role of the Supreme court In claiming that it would be his job basically to "call strikes and balls" means that he thinks that SCOTUS simply looks at the Constitution when a case is before it, rather than the more difficult job of interpreting what the Constitution says. In other words, he isn't supposed to call balls and strikes, he's supposed to define where the strike zone is (credit to Franken). Additionally, his resume shows that he only has a few years experience as a justice.

So, the situation I am afraid will arise from this is that, as Chief Justice, he will be extremely weak. In and of itself, this doesn't have much impact, but with Scalia and Thomas on the SCOTUS too, he's likely to be pushed over in any disagreement, meaning that Scalia becomes de facto Chief.

[bloom]

1. I expect Roberts will do what he can

to make the court ineffective - when he wants it to be.

[sam sarrha]

2. alot like the bible, read into it what your believe.. its a Ouija Board

[sam sarrha]

3. alot like the bible, read into it what your believe.. its a Ouija Board

[Skidmore]

4. I think he is an activist judge. I believe he goes in there with

an agenda and will work with Scalia and Thomas to implement it. I don't think he is naive or impressionable or inexperienced. He is experienced in his ideology, and that is all it takes.

[ken_g]

5. My biggest fear, is that Roberts will go right after Congressional

powers under the commerce clause expanded in the 30's to allow the new deal. I think all the "privacy" issues were smoke screens. He's there to seal the deal to role back the progressive programs and allow a capitalist free-for-all.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_in_exile>

[JDPriestly]

6. Roberts meant that his decisions will

chip away at our rights little by little over his probably long career. The changes will be slow -- almost imperceptible, but always moving in a single direction. A decision here that yet another plaintiff did not have standing to sue (let's say an environmental organization), one over there that a plaintiff's attempt to give notice of a claim was not sufficient, and yet another that Congress really did not mean what it said it meant in passing some law. The right wing takeover will be so subtle that ordinary Americans won't notice it at all. That's what he meant.

Roberts is going to throw the game one play at a time, by always making his call on the side of the rich, the powerful, the dirty players, those who would restrict our freedoms. He will always use the tone of compromise, the rhetoric of reason, but he will always have the interests of the privileged and powerful, never ours, yours and mine, at heart.

Roberts has drunk the wine of success as a corporate lawyer. He was bought and sold long ago. His soul is on the other side. There isn't a single thing that any of us can do about it -- except pray a lot, if you still find the faith to believe in the God of Reason and Justice, that is. This is a sad day for Americans, very sad, indeed. Where is Thurgood Marshall now that we need him? God rest his soul.

[watrwefitinfor]

7. Sadly, so true. (n/t)

[MostlyLurks]

8. Isn't this the whole conceit behind strict constructionism?

I mean, the concept of strict constructionism is that the Constitution needs no interpretation whatsoever - that it is essentially a "complete" and "self-contained" document needing (and accepting) no interpretation because it is 100% clarified in and of itself.

Like you, the balls-and-strikes thing concerned me, but for different reasons. If you think about it, the strike zone is a defined area: up to the letters and down to the knees, extending across the plate. It is only each umpire's interpretation that changes it. If all umps had the same ability to "see" the zone, then it would be uniform. IMO, he's saying, in a coded way, that he'll give a "by the book" reading of the Constitution. In other words, he'll call cases based on a strict constructionist view.

That's why Roberts worries me - he's been vague enough about things that matter, and yet the fundies and the right STILL loves him. He's given some somewhat satisfactory answers about abortion, privacy rights, etc and the right STILL loves him. If that's not alarming, I don't know what is.

Mostly

[ChickMagic]

9. That's how I see it

The "balls and strikes" means that he plans on strict constuctionism. The rules are a strict reading of the Constitution, no unenumerated rights allowed.

[MostlyLurks]

12. Exactly what I meant, and in 1/10th the words. n/t

[ArbustoBuster]

13. Unfortunately for the new CJ...

..."no unenumerated rights" flies directly in the face of the Tenth Amendment.

[Pithy Cherub]

10. SCOTUS operates as separate law firms. Scalia

may or may not have wanted the job - he couldn't have been confirmed. Roberts is in charge of the SCOTUS budget so there will be interesting times ahead. Hopefully Scalia WILL antagonize Roberts, it would help to make Roberts more independent and that would be a marked improvement to what we have now. Roberts is in the Bush mold of making inexperience a necessary qualification to work with this group of republicans.

The Roberts Court begins next Monday... for ill and/or evil.

[imperialismispasse]

11. Well when HAS this administration ever appointed anyone compitent?

Hasnt happened so far, why should it happen now?

[realFedUp]

14. Roberts will hardly be weak

as we've seen in his activist past. Other conservatives
actually had to rein his ideas in. The four Catholics
now on the court will have much in common.

Have nice Opus Dei.

[sweetheart]

15. Bottom line, i don't trust the man

I don't support justices i don't trust. He has this air of falsity about
him, as if he wears heavy makeup to hide something, even if that something
is nothing more than an immense sense of personal insecurity.

He is deliberately fogging the public as to what his intentions and
approeaches are, a stealth candidate with a vat-grown genetically
engineered life, pretending to be natural, disturbingly facile.

I can't look him in the eyes, shake his hand, and trust he's a good man.
What i see is someone intent on criminal collusion, hiding and decieving
so he can get in the chair. Its the same with all these bush criminals.
They lie and decieve, throw elections and erode civil processes to
appoint their mob buddies who are all, every single one of them,
grossly underqualified... and its starting to show in the quality of
their work.