To: alessandrofiaschi
Since his appointment, I wrote that he was more similar to Kennedy than to Scalia or Thomas...
2 posted on
09/16/2005 11:17:17 AM PDT by
alessandrofiaschi
(Is Roberts really a conservative?)
To: alessandrofiaschi
Since his appointment, I wrote that he was more similar to Kennedy than to Scalia or Thomas... You are simply wrong. He is closer to Scalia and Thomas than anyone else on the court. He sees the role of a Supreme Court Justice as a slave to the Constitution.
55 posted on
09/16/2005 11:37:44 AM PDT by
msnimje
(Cogito Ergo Republican)
To: alessandrofiaschi
Since his appointment, I wrote that he was more similar to Kennedy than to Scalia or Thomas...Yeah.
We know.
You're wrong.
56 posted on
09/16/2005 11:38:36 AM PDT by
AmishDude
(Join the AmishDude fan club: "Great point." -- AliVertias; ":-) Very clever" -- MJY1288)
To: alessandrofiaschi
67 posted on
09/16/2005 11:50:15 AM PDT by
stocksthatgoup
(Polls = Proof that when the MSM want your opinion they will give it to you.)
To: alessandrofiaschi
Since his appointment, I wrote that he was more similar to Kennedy than to Scalia or Thomas FROM SLATE:
"Roberts' other moment of self-revelation came thanks to a prompt from Sen. Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, about the proper role of foreign law in interpreting the U.S. Constitution. This is a live issue that will come before the Roberts Court. Taking a position on it doesn't involve saying how a judge would decide a particular case, but it says something significant about the judge's approach to reasoning. It's also a big fat political hot potato. This spring, in his majority opinion banning juvenile execution, Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to the court decisions and practices of other countries. He pointed out that nobody except the United States and Somalia was still killing people for crimes they'd committed as kids. The far-right ginned up the impeach Tony Kennedy movement in response.
If Roberts had been playing his usual don't-box-me-in game, he would have punted on Kyl's question. Instead he strongly stated his "concern" about the "use of foreign law as precedent." Roberts said, "If we're relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge. And yet he's playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country. The other part of it that would concern me is that, relying on foreign precedent doesn't confine judges.
Foreign law, you can find anything you want. If you don't find it in the decisions of France or Italy, it's in the decisions of Somalia or Japan or Indonesia or wherever."
This position is chiefly associated with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas; in the juvenile execution case, Chief Justice William Rehnquist signed on to it as well. The other six members of the court voiced strong support for using foreign decisionsnot as commands by any means, but as sources of possible wisdom. Judges can cite anything they want. What's less democratic about giving a nod to a foreign judge than to William Shakespeare? As long as judges are clear about the limited weight they're giving to foreign lawas they've so far bent over backward to doscanning the globe for a new idea, or empirical evidence to support an old one, seems pretty common-sensical. "
106 posted on
09/16/2005 1:01:36 PM PDT by
msnimje
(Cogito Ergo Republican)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson