Agreed. In fact, his comments in Rancho Viejo v. Norton are rather disturbing. He dissented from the decision not because he thought the Endangered Species act was unconstitutional but only because they were basing it's constitutionality on the commerce clause. He wanted them to base it on other grounds. Ms. Coulter isn't saying this guy is conservative. She is saying that, in a sense, this was a "safe" choice because the guy has rather deliberately attempted to keep himself a blank slate for this purpose. He is not a Judge Alito or Judge Edith Jones, both of whom have, in speeches, rather strongly espoused originalism in the interpretation of the Constitution. Judge Roberts, to my knowledge, has not. And the assurance of conservative groups and the President just aren't reliable enough to base the nomination of a life-time appointment. It has since been discovered that Souter was downright deceptive in his White House dealings with President George H.W. Busy, protraying himself as solidly conservative. The fact that Judge Roberts has been so very careful not to forthrightly espouse originalism, and in fact, takes great care to distance himself from any controversy, does and should raise some red flags. But the nomination is made and we'll now have to see if we're stuck with an activist. If not, great. If so, it could be a very long and damaging 30 year wait to replace him.
The commerce clause is the Primary Rationale used by the "Living Constitution" crowd to federalize Everything. Without the Commerce Clause, there is no real avenue in the Constitution for nationalisation of even the most mundane matter.
His reasoning makes me think he's an originalist, and that is Exactly what we're looking for. He seems to be as "Renquist" as Renquist himself, IMO.
...But the nomination is made and we'll now have to see if we're stuck with an activist. If not, great. If so, it could be a very long and damaging 30 year wait to replace him....
Be positive. If he's a closet commie, we end almost immediately. There won't be any thirty year wait.
So, basically, he is doing opposite of what Souter did?
Thats a good thing in my book.
I don't believe he was on the appellate panel that actually heard "the Toad case".
"And the assurance of conservative groups and the President just aren't reliable enough to base the nomination of a life-time appointment"
Ok, let me get this straight. There are a whole bunch of Conservative groups emailing me relentlessly to support Roberts. I am suppose to ignore that, and the President, and put more faith in the statements of some unknown poster on a website? I guess I would need to see some solid facts to back up your opinon before I could agree with your view.