I had some respect for her but her how she handled impeachment soured me. She sometimes does the right thing (unlike Boxer).
Why vote NO on Roberts when you could vote YES and save your venom and NO for Sandy Day's replacement which is probably Leah's strategy?
I'm *highly* skeptical of Roberts' originalist credentials and folks like our own Tony Snow who have him all but walking on water and parting seas make me angry at their hubris. When he was O'Conners replacement it was an risky but acceptable move but with him replacing Rehnquist, it's likely not even as wash and probably a slight move leftward.
I don't care if he represents "a slight move leftward."
In my opinion, it is short-sighted to pick a Justice of the Supreme Court based on his likely vote on the cases that are likely to come before the court this year or next. Once those cases are decided, new cases that can't even be contemplated today will arise.
What we really need is a Justice who will use a conservative methodology to decide cases. By nominating a justice who believes that a case should be decided by recourse to the constitution, statutes, legislative history and case law, President Bush is attempting to correct the path of the court.
During the past century, and particularly during the last several decades, the court has veered into considering foreign law and other unofficial, anecdotal and even arbitrary opinions. There would be no need to do this unless the judge were straining to find a particular result instead of trying to discover what the law is.
Even if Justice Roberts votes in favor of opinions that are not what conservatives want, he is going to be a leader in limiting the sources that the court uses in making its decisions. This is genuine non-ideological jurisprudence and it is conservative, because it returns power to the legislatures and takes it away from the unelected judges.