Replies

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!

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.

From Robert's testimony:

They [the founders] didn't write the equal protection clause in such narrow terms. They wrote more generally. That may have been a particular problem motivating them, but they chose to use broader terms, and we should take them at their word, so that is perfectly appropriate to apply the equal protection clause to issues of gender and other types of discrimination beyond the racial discrimination that was obviously the driving force behind it."

The broad language lends itself to recontruction with ease.