[Common Tator]

That's exactly what a judge needs to do and unless you have some evidence that he will become a judicial activist for the left, insisting he's another Souter is stupid. And we have no business wishing for a judicial activist from the Right.

Yes I think Roberts is not even close to being a judicial activist from the right or left.

But those that think he will not try to undo legislation that was enacted by judges, is to mistake what he is saying as well.

If you read what Roberts said, the first impression was he would not over turn wrongly decided rulings. But if you read carefully what he said was... If the court decided A using Reason B to justify it when it should have been reason C to justify the decsion, he would not overturn. He did not say what he would do if the court decided A using reason B and he felt reasons B and C were not valid reasons at all.

I found a quite a number of clever Delphic Oracle tyep statements made by Roberts. They are likely to have very different meanings in the light of his performance on the Bench.

Biden understands.. that is why he told Roberts he was the best performing nominee in Bidens 30 years in the Senate.

[NeoCaveman]

And we have no business wishing for a judicial activist from the Right.

This line, I've heard a few times, and it bothers me. So I ask for a point of clarification:
Is strict constructionism judicial activism? And if so, have we lost the language beyond the point of recovery?

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

I did not say he would not undo wrongly decided cases. It would Mb>not</b> be judicial activism to do so but exactly if and how and when he might be ready to do so is unclear and he's not going to say so and ought not say so, indeed, cannot say so without becoming a judicial activist from the right. Carefully overturning really bad court decisions is a proper judicial function. Announcing in advance a political agenda to do so or not to do so (which is what the DimRats want him to do) is a politicization of judicial function, a form of judicial activism. That is why I wrote that we don't know if R v W will be overturned; it ought to be but it needs to be done in a proper judicial way, not a politically activist way. And unless Roberts is a liar, he seems to understand that that's the tightrope he needs to walk as a judge.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

I did read carefully what he said. The initial AP report on his "abortion reply" suppressed the clever way he discussed precedent--a LifeNews story later on Tuesday gave the additional testimony. I am fully aware that he could vote to overturn R v W. based on what he said there but he did not say he would and he should not be saying in advance that he would. Whether Slow Joe Biden understands this or not, I don't know--you are probably right to say that he does. The AP writer didn't--could journalists possibly be slower on the uptake than Slow Joe "Ted Baxter" Biden?

[gobucks]

"Biden understands.. that is why he told Roberts he was the best performing nominee in Bidens 30 years in the Senate."

I was dismayed when I heard Biden had said that....