[Dead Corpse]

Ok. He is pro-States Rights on the Roe V Wade issue. Good for him.

What is his stance on the rest of the Constitution? Like the Second Amendment. Does he know what "shall not be infringed" means?

[newgeezer]

What is his stance on the rest of the Constitution?

I'm asking the same thing. The seemingly unanimous praise from all corners of FR makes me wonder if we're missing something. No more Souters, please.

[adam_az]

ROBERTS: "Before I became a judge, my law practice consisted largely of arguing cases before the court. That experience left me with a profound appreciation for the role of the court in our constitutional democracy and a deep regard for the court as an institution."

This phrase frankly scares the bejeezus out of me. Why would he use those terms??

[Derk Bentley]

I went to google beta for the latest. Under the new Supreme Court nominee is the link 365Gay.com. This makes it look like Bush has nominated a Gay, but it's not true. Nevertheless, the Democrats would oppose and fight tooth and nail. They do not care what their voting blocks think, they make ammends later. But wouldn't it be weird if the guy was a Log Cabin Republican?!?!?!

[billbears]

He is pro-States Rights on the Roe V Wade issue

Where do you see that? I haven't seen a statement concerning his stance on states rights

"It is imperative that the next Supreme Court justice help restore the Constitutional balance of power between the branches of government and leave legislating to Congress and the states," said Coburn.

No Senator it is imperative that the next Supreme Court justice help restore the Constitutional balance of power between the states and the national government through his decisions. Once this is done, what the branches of the national government do between themselves will become inconsequential