Roberts Robes Himself in Pragmatism

Business Week Online ^ | SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 | orraine Woellert

[konaice]

The Chief Justice nominee has rejected strict interpretations of the Constitution. That should hearten the Left and Corporate America alike
...snip...

EYE ON THE FUTURE. Then, sounding like O'Connor, Roberts dropped a bombshell on conservatives who believe in a narrow interpretation of the Constitution: "Judges take a more practical and pragmatic approach when deciding the rule of law," rather than sticking to a strict philosophy, Roberts said. "The Framers chose to use broad language [in the Constitution], and we should take them at their word."

Under friendly but persistent probing from Senators Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Orin Hatch (R-Utah), Roberts dismissed the "strict constructionist" and "textualist" approaches to constitutional law, which keep the powers of the federal government on a shorter leash. "I do not have an over-arching judicial philosophy I bring to every case," Roberts said. "I tend to look at a case from the bottom up." Then he hammered the point home again, to the consternation of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-N.C.): "The Framers were aware they were drafting for the future."

[konaice]

Not having the oppertunity to listen to the entire testimony I'm not able to tell if this reporter is engaging in wishful thinking on a grand scale or if the report is true.

Comments?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

He is playing to the middle, Kennedy , Biden and Schumer are Unhappy!

[Mount Athos]

I see him habitually butchering quotes, where the quote ends and half the statement is filled in with his own paraphrases. He is twisting Robert's statements and viewpoints severely.

[konaice]

I botched the authors name.

Its really Lorraine Woellert

Which makes it a She. At least that's my guess.

[Masada]

You can't trust Business Week under any circumstances. They letter a top DNC guy write a nonsense attack on President Bush for making Katrina worse by dergulating telecom.

And they didn't tell anyone his political background or huge donations.

Details here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1483331/posts

[beyond the sea]

He is twisting Robert's statements and viewpoints severely.

Twisting more than Chubby Checker.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See this:

Day 2: Roberts Continues To Impress, While Democrats Grandstand

Roberts did very well....Kennedy and Biden got very frustrated.....

[Fenris6]

I'm sending Kennedy a bottle of scotch with a note to keep up the good work.

If Teddy didn't exist, Rove would need to invent him.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I see him habitually butchering quotes...

Like every other reporter covering these proceedings. They make Roberts sound all combative, and Schumer and Kennedy appear like victims of Robert's "combative outbursts".

[Mount Athos]

If anyone is curious the entire transcript is here.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05257/571043.stm

[EGPWS]

Kennedy , Biden and Schumer are Unhappy!

That being the case, most others are happy.

D@mn!

[Embraer2004]

That's right, Roberts is dancing circles agfainst Biden and kennedy. And Feinstein had no chance, she looked like a complete idiot grandstanding against Roberts. I think that today the Dems fold their tent completely and Biden, Kennedy, Schmucker and Turban are mad!

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

These hearings are a joke. Object of the game for Roberts: Say some really great-sounding stuff without saying anything substantive at all.

I have no idea what kind of Chief Justice he'll be. Only time will tell.

[JusticeForAll76]

SCOTUSblog has a far more objective analysis

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/

Roberts is quite clearly not a strict constructionist. And I think that is a good thing. The man appears to have a well balanced view of the law. He is pragmatic.

Precisely what we need.

[newfreep]

We do NOT need a pragmatist. The scotusblog link includes:

(Roberts is) a believer that the Constitution changes over time – that it is in some ways a living document.

The Constitution is absolutely, positively NOT a living document!!!! If changes are required, the ammendment process is provided - NOT some unelected liberal judicial activist!

[Les_Miserables]

Exactly.

[TomasUSMC]

I think Roberts was spineless yesterday. His supporters control the House, the Senate, the Presidency. Yet he couldn't stand up for LIFE, but instead hid behind the excuses demonrat nominees have used in the past to not answer questions.

If he won't stand for Life now when its easy, why would he later when hundreds of lawyers and the media will be attacking him.

30 million dead innocent babies and all he can say is:

Well, I feel the need to stay away from a discussion of particular cases.

Well, again, I think I should stay away from discussions of particular issues that are likely to come before the court again. And in the area of abortion, there are cases on the courts docket, of course. It is an issue that does come before the court.

Well, yes, Senator, as a general proposition, but I do feel compelled to point out that I should not, based on the precedent of prior nominees, agree or disagree with particular decisions. And I'm reluctant to do that.

That's one of the areas where I think prior nominees have drawn the line when it comes to, Do you agree with this case or do you agree with that case? And that's something that I'm going to have to draw the line in the sand.

Drawing a line in the sand, as legend has it, is to serve as a division between those who would cross it and fight and those who would not.

Roberts did not cross and fight.

[verity]

"Roberts did not cross and fight."

Bork did and he was "Borked."

[Raycpa]

In effect, Roberts was telling the Senate that just because a right isn't spelled out in the Constitution doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

I agree 100%.

[Raycpa]

There is no point in starting an argument that even if won has no effect on any outcomes. And in this context there is nothing to win and something to lose.