It Takes an Establishment - (President Bush shrewdly beginning to shape SCOTUS for decades!)

WEEKLY STANDARD.COM ^ | AUGUST 1, 2005 | BILL KRISTOL

[GVnana]

a constitutionalist majority

To think I might live to see the day...

[LibertarianInExile]

Useful anecdote. I would enjoy seeing more. Thank you for posting Kristol's article.

[Kryptonite]

"All of that said, my best guess is that he would be a very conservative justice. And because he is so gifted and so decent a human being, he might become incredibly influential on the Court, moving it in ways that justices like Scalia and Thomas have been incapable. In short, he could ultimately be a progressive's worst case scenario."

My sentiments as well. Reassuring to hear it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

[Shawndell Green]

This Roberts guy might be the real deal. A real heavyweight thinking of extraordinary intellect. He may not always rule the way we die hard conservatives want him to rule, but I think he will at least be intelligent and thoughtful in his rulings, which is a big improvement over Sandra Day O'Connor. She was a nitwit. I read her ruling in the affirmative action case and it was nothing but wishful thinking. She was pitiful. But please Lord, do not let this guy turn out to be another Souter.

[ThePythonicCow]

This is a very reassuring post - thank-you.

[Spirited]

"Roberts is no Bork, no Scalia, and no Thomas." Kristol

Bush promised conservatives Scalia/Thomas types. He hasn't delivered.

[King Prout]

well, he seems a good fellow.
here's hoping appearances do not deceive...

[CHARLITE]

"This is a very reassuring post - thank-you."

And I thank YOU for the comment. I was also reassured. I find Bill Kristol a most "reassuring" and likeable man. He adds a lot of warmth to Brit Hume's afternoon show on Fox Cable News.

Thanks again!

Char :)

[Kryptonite]

Bush meant no disrespect to Rhenquist by mentioning younger conservatives. Thomas is no Scalia and Scalia is no Thomas, and so forth.

[Torie]

The article is flawed, because Kristol fails to point out how Reinquist's judicial philosophy is different than Scalia's. I am not sure either, although if I had to guess, Reinquist is more political, and more attuned to deciding on a result pleasing to the establishment right, and then reverse engineering, and a bit more respectful of stare decisis. I have read on the net, that Reinquist doesn't bother to give reasons much at all, he just rules. That sounds like a bit much.

But I don't know either. There is too much vague loose talk about this matter; too much intellectual laziness. Awareness of ignorance is the first step to knowledge.

Kristols article for the above reasons sucks.

[Kryptonite]

Reinquist eh?

[Torie]

Rehnquist. I just want to spell it wrong, each and every time, apparently.

[Kryptonite]

Hey, I spelled it Rhenquist.

Rehnquist it is I guess.....:)

[tlb]

A couple of months ago I defended the "Gang of 14" filabuster deal by saying "Touchdowns are rarely one long run from across the field. They usually come from a series of short gains."

The Roberts nomination appears as just one more example of such a play. The Gloom and Doom types should chill.

[nopardons]

bttt

[Michael.SF.]

Joondeph concludes, "So all of this leaves me quite conflicted."

A very telling anecdote and an even more telling response to it. Why should Mr. Joondeph be conflicted?

He has just stated the Roberts possesses all of the qualifications to be an excellent AJOTSC, yet apparently, he still would be in favor of the Democrats voting against him. Why?

Because the Democrats could care less about fairness, civility, reason and being open minded to those who disagree with them.

[Texas Federalist]

Rehnquist has a greater reluctance to overturn precedent.

[Torie]

The yin and the yang of Roberts from Jeff Rosen in a new article in the New Republic:

"At Harvard Law School, Roberts wrote a student note on the Takings Clause, in which he rejected a rigidly literal interpretation of the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. "The very phrase 'just compensation' suggests that the language of the clause must be informed by changing norms of justice," Roberts wrote in a passage that should gladden liberal hearts. Rejecting as too subjective and vague a series of tests that courts had applied over the years, Roberts endorsed a "constrained utility model" for identifying unconstitutional takings. [ying] Building on the work of the great liberal constitutionalist Frank Michaelman, Roberts said that people made "insecure" by regulation should be compensated accordingly. [yang]More significant than the details of Roberts's youthful effort is the fact that he was not drawn to the rigidly libertarian, historically based vision of the Takings Clause that Thomas has embraced. Nothing in Roberts's note suggested a desire to resurrect what some libertarian activists call the Constitution in Exile--limitations on federal power that have been dormant since the New Deal.

"In another student comment, Roberts rejected a literal interpretation of the Contracts Clause, which provides that "No state shall ... pass any ... law impairing the obligation of contracts." As in his earlier article, Roberts criticized Justice William Brennan's textualist approach, arguing that "constitutional protections ... should not depend merely on a strict construction that may allow 'technicalities of form to dictate consequences of substance.'" [ying again] Although liberal interest groups have attacked Roberts's youthful writings as a sign of his willingness to ignore the text of the Constitution in an effort to side with corporations and wealthy property owners, these writings are more illuminating as evidence of the fact that he has never been drawn, from his earliest days, to top-down ideologies."

What does it all mean? Is constrained utility and being made to feel insecure by regulation, different than the concept that the fair market value of the land has been reduced by regulation? How is it different? Is utility a concept different than productivity? Did Roberts take an economics class somewhere along the way?

[AliVeritas]

Please sign Roberts petition:
http://www.townhall.com/action/ProtectOurConstitution2.html