[Reagan Man]

>>>>Just a few minutes into it and I am already very very impressed with John Roberts. Wow, he's a smart man.

Yes indeed. John Roberts is a very smart man. But by his own admission, he is not an originalist or a constitutionalist in the mold of the Founding Fathers. He calls himself, a "modest". Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas aren't modests, and the late CJ William Rehnquist wasn't a modest either.

I think Roberts has done a good job so far in battling FatTed Kennedy and the other liberals on the committee.

However, Roberts answer regarding Romer v Evans case was disappointing. In that Coloardo case, the USSC overruled the will of the voters and said that special rights existed for homosexuals and bisexuals under law. Roberts said, he found nothing immoral about lending assistence to members of his law firm who were handling the case for those militant gay activists involved.

Roberts also said, he respected and admired SCJ Jackson, who was FDR's AG, for his ability to change his mind or opinion on a given issue. As AG Jackson had one set of standards. As a judge, Jackson had another set of standards. Roberts finds that an admiring quality.

[mosquitobite]

Roberts also said, he respected and admired SCJ Jackson, who was FDR's AG, for his ability to change his mind or opinion on a given issue. As AG Jackson had one set of standards. As a judge, Jackson had another set of standards. Roberts finds that an admiring quality.

Not comforting...

[Carolinamom]

Roberts never hesitates in answering questions and the knowledge and recall that he has at his finger tips is impressing me BIG time. Excellent choice, Mr. President!

[You Dirty Rats]

Roberts also said, he respected and admired SCJ Jackson, who was FDR's AG, for his ability to change his mind or opinion on a given issue. As AG Jackson had one set of standards. As a judge, Jackson had another set of standards. Roberts finds that an admiring quality.

Roberts actually thinks lawyers should advocate their client's position and judges should impartially rule? The Horrah!

[milagro]

Sorry- I disagree. I think of Thomas Beckett: he was King Henry's good friend, but when he became archbishop of Canterbury, his role changed, and so did his perspective.

I was once a Union steward (back in my liberal days) but I had to stay within the framework of a Union Contract when I handled grievances. Sometimes what happened to people (like getting fired) was addressable under that contract, sometimes it was not. Sometimes real jerks got their jobs back because the agreement was clearly violateed. Sometimes real sweethearts lost their job because the contract was NOT violated. To me it was very important that the contract prevailed--as it should have--not my own personal feelings.

I think this is exactly how Roberts is going to approach his very important job of upholding the Constitution. His own PERSONAL feelings will not determine how he rules, the CONSTITUTION will!