Fascinating Interview with Roberts re 1997 SCOTUS Term, great insights to his personal views

JOHN ROBERTS, Former Deputy Solicitor General: I do think there’s a solid majority on the court for the proposition that federalism has to be taken seriously; that states do retain rights under our federal system; and that, for example, as the sheriffs were saying to the federal government, we want you to do this, we don’t work you. They work for the states, not for the federal government. That basic division of authority is designed to protect individual rights. That’s one area where I disagree with Prof. Tribe. I think by enforcing these structural limitations, states have their powers and rights. The federal government is limited. The end objective, as the framers intended, is to protect individual rights.

Well, they were acknowledging their limitations, but I think it’s important not to have too narrow a view of protecting personal rights. The right that was protected in the assisted suicide case was the right of the people through their legislatures to articulate their own views on the policies that should apply in those cases of terminating life and not to have the court interfering in those policy decisions. That’s an important right as well.

And if it’s a court that doesn’t seem so warm and embracing of theories that are popular on the law school campuses, I hope the other members of the panel will forgive me for not thinking that’s a serious flaw.

I found this discussion with Roberts commenting on the court's 1997 term fascinating. It's one of the few, if only times where you get to see his personal opionions, not where he's representing a client/testifying to get confirmed.

Anyway, 1. He seems to agree with Scalia/Thomas in the Right to Die case, the Brady Bill/Gun Control case, and the Religious Freedom case. This quote, re the Right to Die case, "The right that was protected in the assisted suicide case was the right of the people through their legislatures to articulate their own views on the policies that should apply in those cases of terminating life and not to have the court interfering in those policy decisions. That’s an important right as well." is important. It implies he realizes that courts don't have the answers all the time and that they shouldn't interfere with the legislative process in certain areas, especially, life issues. This opinion, which agrees with Scalia/Thomas indicates he'd be favorable to returning Abortion to the states, ie overturn Roe.

Second, he disagrees with the liberal, Tribe in just about everything during the interview, that's got to be a good sign

Third, he says that if his view aren't popular on the law school campuses(ie the liberal law schools)he doesn't really care-shows he's unlikely to be subject to the pressure of liberal elites.

anyway, the stuff he says here is certainly reassuring and interesting to actually see him give his own views. He was on with Douglas Kmiec as one of 2 conservatibes against Tribe and another liberal so that shows he clearly thinks of himself as having a conservative judicial approach.

Thoughts?

The text of my email to Dionne yesterday:

Yo Mr. Dionne:

You should be scanning the blogs at FreeRepublic.com if you are not already.

There are plenty of arguments to counter your "fears". Chief of them all is the legal note that Ann Coulter unearthed where he as much backed off the arguments against Roe v Wade.

Besides all that, what in the world did the Democrats expect, that President Bush would nominate Janet Reno or some such liberal?

He campaigned on this issue for justices in the league of Scalia and Thomas, and HE WON the election. So...the American people expect and should receive justices like Scalia and Thomas...including the Senate's confirmation...or feel cheated.

Please...let's stop with the Florida fiasco, and that a conservative court GAVE Bush the election. I think this is the only time since the 50s that liberals have referred to a conservative Supreme Court! Gag me with a spoon.

Get over it. Democrats lost in 2000 (even though they still haven't gotten over that their fraud didn't work), lost in 2002, lost in 2004 and unless they change something...or the Republicans do something totally dorky...will lose in 2006 as well.

Have you seen and read Hugh Hewitt's "If It's Not Close They Can't Cheat"? The liberal Democrats are force growing a kind of "Put the Hammer Down" electorate among Republicans. We see the tricks, and we are learning to
play hardball now.

The American people knew clearly what kind of Justice he would nominate. The Democrats are clearly clinging to dear life, as the SCOTUS is the ONLY place they can get their liberal agenda done. That is why it is war with
them...they are on the outs and know it, and are fighting tooth and nail to not be swept into the dust bin of American history. That is why Hillary is now showing her softer side, her moderate side. Let's build the military? Her husband cut it almost 40% (don't say she wasn't behind it) during his 8 years. Now she is seeing she must migrate to the center, but still be a true liberal inside.

The best thing that can be said about the Republicans NOT playing hardball like the Democrats...is that slowly but surely the majority in the Senate and House is growing.

Republicans gave Clinton his hard left justice in Ginsburg. They should not have, in my opinion. I am not saying they should have filibustered (I don't believe this right to do with confirmations), but over 90 votes? vidence that we had too many RINOs in the Senate, and still do...otherwise the "constitutional" option would have been a done deal a couple months ago.

Best to you!

Kenn

PS--John Paul Stevens was 50 when he was nominated...Ginsburg was 52...Breyer was freaking 49 so let's quit the whining about how young anyone is.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.