[terycarl]

I refuse to use a relative scale. Roberts is a "better justice" than who Gore would have appointed... yet what quality is he?

so as far as you're concerned, every decision by a judge that you basically believe in must be in accordance with your own opinion.....good luck on that one.

I would be very dubious of a judge who agreed with me on every matter, that would lower him to my level of legal understanding....and believe me, that could be very dangerous.

[OneWingedShark]

>I refuse to use a relative scale. Roberts is a "better justice" than who Gore would have appointed... yet what quality is he?

so as far as you're concerned, every decision by a judge that you basically believe in must be in accordance with your own opinion.....good luck on that one.

No, I did not say that. The problem is precisely this: any judge who thinks that a) it's been done before makes it ok, b) the constitution is whatever the USSC says it is, and/or c) the USSC can alter the Constitution ought not be a supreme court Justice.

a -- is precisely the idolization of case law and precedent.
b -- is a proud mind, incapable of accepting the authority of the Constitution over his position.
c -- is one who thinks himself above the law, a Black-Robed God-King.