[coulterfan1]

To try to equate a lawyers personal views to what cases is an exercise in futility. It is like asking a skunk not to stink. Lawyers take cases and advocate for clients.

And the kind I like are the ones who don't take cases that pit them directly against private property rights.

I guess for me, the biggest problem w/having to pick a Supreme Court Justice is that that person has to have been a (cough) lawyer.

[Texasforever]

And the kind I like are the ones who don't take cases that pit them directly against private property rights.

Yes and for the pro-life folks it is R v W that is the overriding concern and for the RKBA folks it is the 2nd amendment stances that is the deal breaker and for the 10th amendment folks it is the states' rights issue and on and on and on. There is no one around that can be the perfect "conservative". Why? Because your stance is in direct conflict with those in business that consider themselves every bit as conservative as you. The social conservatives goals are in direct conflict with the libertarian right and it becomes a circular firing squad.

[garandgal]

And the kind I like are the ones who don't take cases that pit them directly against private property rights.

Agreed. IMO that is one of the most important issues to be considered with this nomination. Since O'Connor voted to dissent, we would actually be going "backwards" on the issue if the nominee isn't firmly on the side of property rights.

The administration's silence after the court ruling says plenty about their opinion of the issue.

Two of the main underpinnings of this republic are property rights and gun rights; undercut them, and lose the rest.

Judge Roberts has a great background; I hope we get a little more insight into his views.