[inquest]

"President Ronald Reagan used to speak of the Soviet constitution, and he noted that it purported to grant wonderful rights of all sorts to people. But those rights were empty promises, because that system did not have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law and enforce those rights."

If Roberts thinks that the lack of an independent judiciary is the only reason why the Soviet "bill of rights" never amounted to a hill of beans, then that's a serious warning sign against him. The real problem with the Soviet BOR was not the lack of a proper implementing mechanism. It's that the bill itself was heretical. As Reagan noted, the problem is that it purported to "grant" rights to citizens. Ours instead limits government, and underscores that point by making it clear that we have pre-existing rights beyond what's listed, that government is bound to respect.

If Roberts can't understand that distinction, then he's unfit to sit on the court.

[TheGunny]

You are sooooo smart! (sarcasm)

[TheDon]

His comment did not address that question, but rather he was addressing the need for an independent judiciary.