[republican2005]

It's only a stroke of genius if he actually turns out to be a real conservative...

If he turns out to be another Stevens or Souter... Bush will in the end look like an idiot.

It's a shame that no one on our side is demanding for this guy to disclose his views. Why is it Republicans always have to leave it to chance when we nominate a USSCJ but the liberals get it right 100% of the time.

[Dead Corpse]

"If". Mighty big word there for such small letters. A word have we have burned by before. But people like Ann and Joseph get a full rations of BS from the Bushbots for daring to question their glorious leaders annointed one.

Despite the fact that all they are saying is: "What do we really know about this guy?"

Is just asking that one question such an onerous thing to do?

[kevkrom]

It's a shame that no one on our side is demanding for this guy to disclose his views.

His views mean diddley-squat. You're thinking like a liberal -- wanting a judge to be an activist, just as long as he's activist your way. The only two questions that really matter are 1) does the judge follow the law and the Constitution? and 2) what is the judge's opinions with regard to stare decisis?

The first question is by far the most important -- if a judge strictly follows the law and the Constitution, then everything else will sort itself out. A judge who will uphold the law, even when it disagrees with his personal opinions, is definately the sort that belongs on the USSC. As far as stare decisis goes, this is where you get the differences between the Scalia and Thomas schools of thought... should the USSC reconsider its own decisions? On the one side, it is easy to point to bad decisions like the recent Kelo case as an example of why stare decisis shouldn't be so important; on the flip-side, a USSC that holds little or no respect for previous decisions makes for a less stable legal system, because there's an air of "at whim" out there. In my opinion, some form of balance is needed on this point -- respect precedent, but reserve the option to revisit controverisal cases, especially 5-4 decisions.

Back to Roberts... his history shows that he's good on #1 -- he's not an activist, he follows the law (look at the infamous "french fry" case for an excellent example). I haven't seen or heard anything with regards to #2.

[Texas Federalist]

It's a shame that no one on our side is demanding for this guy to disclose his views.

Exactly. We should be making as much of the hearings as Democrats. I want to know where this guy stands.

[Waywardson]

Why is it Republicans always have to leave it to chance when we nominate a USSCJ but the liberals get it right 100% of the time.

---

Nothing in Politics is an accident. Bush knows exactly what he is doing. Conservatives are the only ones in the dark. And that should tell us exactly where we are going with this nomination. The more of the far far right that comes out with questions about this guy, the more I am concerned that we have been had by the Bushies. "I've got a bad feeling about this" - Han Solo