President Bush's blink

[emad]

Bush promised to appoint justices like those he most admires. He has broken that promise.

By Geoffrey R. Stone
Published July 27, 2005


Those of us who would passionately oppose yet another "out-of-the-mainstream" right-wing nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court should sheathe our swords.

What does it mean to say that a jurist is "out of the mainstream"? On the liberal side, it might mean a judge who would hold that there is a constitutional right to welfare, that affirmative action is constitutionally mandated, that the 1st Amendment forbids government ever to invoke God, and that our freedom from "unreasonable searches and seizures" may never be compromised, even in time of war. I know many judges who hold one or more of these views, but I know none who accepts them all. Such a judge, however, would surely be out of the mainstream of American constitutional thought. He would be at the far-left fringe of the bell curve.

On the conservative side, a judge might be out of the mainstream if he would hold that states may constitutionally endorse religion, that affirmative action is unconstitutional, that Roe vs. Wade should be overruled, that the 1st Amendment prohibits any regulation of commercial advertising or corporate political spending and that the president has the authority to detain an American citizen indefinitely without any access to a lawyer or judicial review. Such a judge (think Clarence Thomas) would also be out of the mainstream of respectable constitutional thought. He would be at the far-right fringe of the bell curve.

That brings me to John Roberts. During the 2004 presidential election, George W. Bush promised to appoint Supreme Court justices like those he most admires: Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In nominating John Roberts, Bush has broken that promise, to the great good fortune of the American people. The last thing the nation needs is for one-third of the Supreme Court to be off the deep right end of the law.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0507270014jul27,1,1899219.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

[ClintonTyree]

1. Has Mr.Stone been reading................

the same information I've been reading about the seemingly nebulous Mr. Roberts? If so, then he sees something there that I don't see.
Roberts has said flat out that Roe vs. Wade is wrong, that he would have to recuse himself in a case in conflict with his religion. This doesn't sound like a "centrist" to me. He sounds like a Junior Varsity version of Scalia or Thomas, in their early, formative years.

:puffpiece: Just another puffpiece meant to gloss over the glaring weaknesses of Roberts, that there's no need to look too closely, he's a fine man for the job. :eyes: Yeah, right! :puke:

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. I'm not registering, this being my at-work computer, so I can't

read the article. The snip ends before the author makes any justification for his claim. What's his premise in defending the record of a 'jurist' who has only been a judge for 2 years and who spent the rest of his career as a partisan Republican operative? Isn't the supreme court supposed to be the finest judicial minds in the country? How can he make that claim?

[geckosfeet]

3. He helped put Bush in office. Bush is paying off many debts at once

with this nomination. Thats all. Bush is too fucking stupid to have any agenda other than greasing the wheels of his corporate crony machinery. He has sold our country piecemeal to the highest bidders and this nomination is consistent with that. George Bush is a traitor.

As for Roberts, from what I have read and heard, he will tilt the bench far, far to the right, and to me, this is simply unacceptable.