First off, even though Scalia is a devout Catholic he does not follow Catholic teaching on natural law--he is at odds with _Evangelium Vitae_ regarding laws that contradict natural law being unjust and do not compel obedience. I still like Scalia very much, but one must recognize that he had this huge argument with JPII's position on this.
Second, social conservatives need to listen carefully to what Roberts is saying. To undo the huge and vicious mess that the activist liberal SCOTUS has gotten us into we cannot stoop to the same judicial activism or we are just as bad as they are. Instead, the umpire image he used has to be followed rigorously. That may or may not lead to overturning Roe v. Wade--it should lead to that (it was outrageously bad constitutional interpretation) but even if R v. W is overturned some day, it only returns the issue to the state legislatures where it belongs. In the meantime, by his umpire analogy, plenty of ways of chipping away at R. v W. are possible. The judicial activism, legislating from the bench has to be stopped and Roberts is 100 % good for that. But precisely because he respects the role of the judge as umpire and not player, he will not use SCOTUS to create laws that social conservatives might find useful Congress and state legislatures have to do that and if they do, then a Roberts court--a majority of Robertses--would leave stand the legislation the legislatures pass instead of overturning it.
We could then have the Partial Birth Abortion ban instead of the Souterses and Stevenses and various federal judges overturning it. We are winning the battle in the red state legislatures. Our problem is that the elitist activist courts undo what we gain through our elections. Stopping that is all we should be asking for; to go beyond that is to turn around and do what we decry the libs for doing.
In that light, Roberts is _not_ another Souter. If the problem has been liberal activist judges, then Roberts's testimony and his writings show that he is not one of those.
There is one other possibility: perhaps you think he is lying through his teeth when he uses the umpire analogy and, when seated, will become a judicial activist? He has told us he will not. To assume that he will without evidence is grossly unfair--it's the sort of thing a Ted Kennedy or a Joe Biden or a Charles Schumer would do. Don't stoop to their methods. Or do you have evidence that he's a liar,that he says one thing and does another, that he can't be trusted? If so, what is that evidence? Accusing someone of being a deceiver is serious business and you better have evidence for it.
We don't want our agenda forced on the American people by courts any more than we want the Libs' agenda forced on us by courts. What we need are the courts returned to being true courts rather than legislatures and then we have to do the hard slogging work of legislating in the legislatures the sort of social order and morality that we believe in.
It's myopic to start calling Roberts another Souter. There's no evidence of that because he steadfastly refuses to give political answers. Souter has a record of political activist judicial rulings. Roberts has again and again pledged to hear each case strictly according to the law. 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.
Good post, well-stated.
"Stopping that is all we should be asking for; to go beyond that is to turn around and do what we decry the libs for doing."
I sincerely am NOT promoting the idea that conservative 'judicial activism' is a good idea.
I am however promoting the idea that this man may indeed be deceptive and deceiving. Not on any evidence whatsoever from him ... but on the emotional reactions of the democrats on the committee. He is going to get many democrat votes in total. I don't know how many. Perhaps as many as half of them if not more.
It is that sense that I have that gives me misgivings, but nonetheless, your charge that I may be myopic may have merit. Time will tell.
btw, I do wear glasses..... I hate em. But haven't wanted to do Lasik....
We could then have the Partial Birth Abortion ban instead of the Souterses and Stevenses and various federal judges overturning it. We are winning the battle in the red state legislatures. Our problem is that the elitist activist courts undo what we gain through our elections. Stopping that is all we should be asking for; to go beyond that is to turn around and do what we decry the libs for doing.
Very, very well said. Thank you.
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.
But after time to reflect two wrongs don't make a right, we need judges that are judges and then we need to elect lawmakers that understand the Constitution and the proper place of the Federal government.
I had initial misgivings about Robert's but after watching him for two days I am impressed. He is a good man.
I will not agree with all his ruling, but then I don't agree with all of Scalia's ruling but overall I pray Rodgers will be the man he appears to be.