Oh good, another 'constitutional' lawyer. Geez, ths place is becoming as crowded with legally educated lawyer types as SCOTUSblog....
He's a sound jurist, though it's difficult to say with certainty whether he will construe the Constitution in the same manner as Scalia and Thomas because as a circuit judge he is not permitted to do much of anything but follow the USSC.
Uh-oh, the cover up begins. Roberts agreed with Scalia and not Thomas. Big difference. Alito will fall under the sphere of Scalia as well. Big government, no idea of federalism.
So let me get this straight. You've claimed a legal education and you can't read between the lines of opinions to get the feel of what the judge is thinking? I'd be more than happy to direct you to several of Alito's decisions where his opinion on several issues is easily discernable...Oh but wait, I didn't read them in 'light of a legal education' so I must have read them wrong...
The practice of law, even constitutional law, is largely objective rather than subjective, as a close encounter with the bar exam would inform you. The only subjectivism being practiced is by liberal judges "discovering" nonexistent rights in the Constitution for political reasons. If conservatives do the same thing, they are JUST as wrong as the liberals.
But yet that's what many 'conservatives' would have these judges do. Scalia and Roberts were wrong, Thomas was right. One opinion was a Republican opinion, and one was a Constitutionalist one. If Constitutional law is objective how on earth did 9 people come to three different conclusions?!? Also for you to say that Constitutional law is not subjective, it sort of defeats the point of having nine judges as by your standard of objectivism they should all come to the same conclusion every time. Since they don't.....Geez, I'm glad you're not a doctor
Unfortunately, just reading and "studying" the opinions doesn't do the job. Otherwise, why would anybody bother to go to law school?
If you and the other one were the only instances I had to base my opinion on, I'd say good question. However, we have respected jurists like Janice Rogers Brown, J. Michael Luttig, and Clarence Thomas (even Justice Rehnquist to some extent, God rest his soul) that remind me law schools do have some purpose. Lawyers do have they're there (did I miss one?) their uses
And re Judge Napolitano - he's not a constitutional lawyer and there's a big difference between a STATE trial court judge and a FEDERAL circuit judge. (This is another reason why some law school time comes in handy.)
Well thank ye!! Us unedukated folks don't know them differences between the states and the federal government. Unfortunately most 'conservatives' don't either. Now as Judge Napolitano is such a failure in your eyes at what he does and since you have read 'opinions in the light of a legal education' should I ask you as well why you're only postng on an internet bulletin board? Do you have any books out there I may have heard of? Get your name out there, you could be the next Senator from the state of Georgia!!
and re the good Congressman - most everyone on FR knows his real name, and since you're so well-versed in Supreme Court matters it should be a simple matter to find a couple of his cases on the USSC website . . . he doesn't need to present "evidence" because anyone can find out for himself. . . .
Oh trust me. I have looked at that as well. The information is quite easily found. Why do you think I asked the questions? I believe I may have missed some.....
Now WHO did you say is ad homining here?
Not me...not me..
I do again find it interesting that now you refuse, or can't, answer the question. Let me put it out for you again so you can ignore it and continue the attacks eh? The original poster suggested (actually stated matter of factly) that Roberts and Scalia would agree in most opinions with Thomas and Brown. Do you agree with that? And if so, what is your basis for such a statement? As you will no doubt focus on my rebuttal (that's a lawyer type word ain't it?) instead of answering the question put before you, I will end this conversation post haste. It's boring and for some reason the questions I pose never get answered...
Sorry if you feel that I'm dodging the question, but in the words of one of our (local) appellate court judges, talking with you about the law is like trying to nail a jellyfish to the wall. I'm not even sure I understand exactly what you're trying to say. Maybe the fault is on my part - in which case I do apologize for being unable to follow your argument.