Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Analysis: Some revelations on Day Two (Roberts)
Scotusblog ^ | 09/14/05 | Lyle Denniston

Posted on 09/14/2005 9:08:54 AM PDT by jdhljc169

During a long day of senatorial questioning of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., on Tuesday, the nominee to be Chief Justice was revealed as an interesting combination of a constitutional "originalist" and a believer that the Constitution changes over time - that it is in some ways a living document. To some observers, those seem like quite contradictory notions, but Roberts melded them in testimony that sounded much like a description of his own judicial philosophy.

If he follows that approach as a member of the Supreme Court, it would distance him from the Court's two most conservative constitutionalists, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Both of them consider quite illegitimate the thought that the Constitution's words should be given up-to-date meanings, as times change. Roberts drew a distinction between original motivation and the breadth of language actually chosen by constitutional draftsmen. One can accept why a provision was put into the Constitution, he suggested, but then see breadth -- and some fluidity -- in the concepts written into the document.

On a day when he was considerably more forthcoming than his liberal critics would concede, Roberts made a number of highly significant remarks about his philosophy. Sometimes, one had to read closely to get through the subtlety and the nuance of many of his answers to senators' question. There were many comments that left unclear whether Roberts was stating his own views, or merely recounting what past Justices and Courts have said. But, on a perhaps surprising number of topics, the nub of what he thinks did, indeed, emerge. None, however, was more interesting than his view of "originalism."

(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: 109th; johnroberts; robertsconfirmation; robertshearings; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last
This makes me nervous.
1 posted on 09/14/2005 9:08:54 AM PDT by jdhljc169
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jdhljc169

Me too.


2 posted on 09/14/2005 9:13:46 AM PDT by lainde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdhljc169

I'm nervous when ANY lawyer speaks.

I believe he is a good lawyer, and is being careful to talk only about the past. No one is going to get his opinion on the future or future rulings.


3 posted on 09/14/2005 9:13:56 AM PDT by i_dont_chat (Our President's intervention saved lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdhljc169
"a believer that the Constitution changes over time"

sh*t

4 posted on 09/14/2005 9:18:19 AM PDT by phasma proeliator (It's not always being fast or even accurate that counts... it's being willing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdhljc169

Count me in as nervous as well. On the other hand, maybe he is saying "all the right things" just to get through this process. I guess they call that the "glass is half full" syndrome on my part????


5 posted on 09/14/2005 9:18:32 AM PDT by mn-bush-man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mn-bush-man
Count me in as nervous as well. On the other hand, maybe he is saying "all the right things" just to get through this process. I guess they call that the "glass is half full" syndrome on my part????

I pray you are right...

6 posted on 09/14/2005 9:19:42 AM PDT by jdhljc169
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jdhljc169

My own shadow makes me nervous. I wish it would stop stalking me.


7 posted on 09/14/2005 9:20:09 AM PDT by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankjr
My own shadow makes me nervous. I wish it would stop stalking me.

LOL!

8 posted on 09/14/2005 9:21:01 AM PDT by jdhljc169
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jdhljc169

In other words, is he a social LIBERAL when he deems fit?


9 posted on 09/14/2005 9:22:29 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdhljc169
Obviously Denniston was as fooled as the Democrats on the Judiciary Panel by Judge Roberts answers.
10 posted on 09/14/2005 9:23:12 AM PDT by msnimje (CNN - Constant Negative Nonsense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

For what its worth, a guy I work with went to school with Roberts and knows him quite well. My co-worker is very conservative. He went to Harvard with Roberts and kept in touch and knows him well. He says he's a solid conservative. He said he sees him as a Scalia type.


11 posted on 09/14/2005 9:27:51 AM PDT by RayBob (If guns kill people, can I blame misspelled words on my keyboard?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jdhljc169

I thnk conservatives have historically been penalized for being forthright and not playing games, be they president, legislators, judicial candidates, etc. It has historically been the purview of liberals to say whatever is necessary to achieve a desired outcome. I understand that we would all like for our desired candidate to go before the confirmation committee and say exactly what he/she believes without fear of consequence. But the reality is there are severe consequences in that any strict consitutionalist who goes before the committee and speaks the truth will not be confirmed, period. I don't know if Roberts is being sly here or not, but I think the fact that he's not representing himself as another Thomas or Scalia doesn't necessarily mean that he's going to turn in to another Souter. It's a sad state that it is this way, but I'm not sure how I feel about the value of being true to yourself when it results in you losing consistently, it's the world we live in today.


12 posted on 09/14/2005 9:32:09 AM PDT by CoolPapaBoze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RayBob

I think that during the confirmation hearings, Roberts main objective is to be ambiguous. And he is doing a great job. He is a smart guy. He knows what happened to Bork. If hard core conservatives were very happy about his testimony, chances are he would not be confirmed. Unfortunately, these hearings are all politics.


13 posted on 09/14/2005 9:32:55 AM PDT by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RayBob
For what its worth, a guy I work with went to school with Roberts and knows him quite well. My co-worker is very conservative. He went to Harvard with Roberts and kept in touch and knows him well. He says he's a solid conservative. He said he sees him as a Scalia type.

That makes me feel somewhat better. I hope is right.

14 posted on 09/14/2005 9:34:26 AM PDT by jdhljc169
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jdhljc169
This is one of the few honest views, imo. The right is inserting wishful thinking into their analysis, while the left is inserting Murphy's Law thinking (if it can be bad, it will be bad...if it can be against us, it will be against us...etc). Rare is the person who can look at Roberts (Mr. Nuance?) and take what he says at face value (to the extent that that is even humanly possible).

This entire process has become a joke. But if Roberts is our "conservative" then I cringe at who the next nominee will be. I was more comfortable with him as an O'Connor replacement than I am with him as a Rehnquist replacement.

15 posted on 09/14/2005 9:41:25 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (The repenting soul is the victorious soul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdhljc169
the nominee to be Chief Justice was revealed as an interesting combination of a constitutional "originalist" and a believer that the Constitution changes over time - that it is in some ways a living document.

Uh-oh!
16 posted on 09/14/2005 9:42:16 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RayBob

Thank you for posting the insight given to you by your co-worker. I know there are a very few Harvard graduates who do not succumb to the prevailing doctrine anunciated there.
It is comforting to think that Roberts may be one of those very, very few.

Now if he doesn't also adopt the elitist attitude that prevails in the circles to which he is raised he will prove to have been a very wise man and will bear the office well.

Ann Coulter has more reason to be right in her assesment than any other of the pundits. I fervently hope along with her that he is other than what he was most likely to be or become. Hoping and praying that he is a leader sent by the "hand of providence" for our time.

I fervently hope that he can also get those new precious children into line as well because that is the first testimony of his leadership quality and right now it's not there.


17 posted on 09/14/2005 9:46:13 AM PDT by Spirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Spirited

Good luck getting a 4 and 5 year old to sit still longer than a few minutes at a time. Better men than me have tried and failed.


18 posted on 09/14/2005 9:49:15 AM PDT by misterrob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: phasma proeliator
"a believer that the Constitution changes over time"

Why does this statement bother you, and many other people? If the Founding Fathers had meant for the Constitution to be engraved in stone, then they would not have painstakingly created a means to amend it. What Judge Roberts said is a true statement, coming form an originalist.

Admitting that the Constitution can change over time, and calling it the ever popular on the left "living document" are two totally seperate things.

19 posted on 09/14/2005 9:51:21 AM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: phasma proeliator

Don't sweat it....

He's a solid Constitutionalist....The article is slanted to cause dissent amoung conservatives...

To paraphrase his response he stated that in some instances the original framers of the constitution spoke in very broad and intentionally vague terms and in those circumstances, consider the intent of the framers at that time and apply it. Only in those circumstances might there be some interpretation to today's world.....

Geez....that's just a common sense answer....where vague, try to apply the framers overall priciples to today's issues.

NeverGore :^)


20 posted on 09/14/2005 9:53:46 AM PDT by nevergore (“It could be that the purpose of my life is simply to serve as a warning to others.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson