Sigh....where to start with this? First off, this article is rather silly in many points. We shouldn't complain about his lack of a record because it should have been a 14 year record but wasn't because he wasn't confirmed? What does that do to address the problem about the paucity of the record? Nothing. Instead we are being asked to trust "people in the know" that Judge Roberts is a "solid" conservative. We've been down that road before and it's name is Souter. Secondly, he mentions that several distinguised jurists have not had extensive records. He names 5: Rehnquist, Thomas, Earl Warren, Souter, and O'Connor. So, from this we can conclude we have a 2 out of 5 chance of getting an originalist? I think we could do better than that for a lifetime appointment. I don't know of anyone saying he's not qualified to be on the Court for lack of experience or intelligence. The reservations of those of us on the Right stems from the fact that we can't tell for certain his judicial philosophy because of the lack of a paper trail.And this article also mentions, very selectively, Judge Roberts' opinion in Rancho Viejo v. Norton. Yes, it is true that he disagreed with the majority that the Endangered Species Act because it affects interstate commerce....but he urged them to use other means to find it Constitutional.
He is also enamored of the fact that Roberts experience as a lawyer makes him qualified and makes the rather ridiculous assertion that this fact makes up for his lack of a judicial record. The opinions expressed by a lawyer do not necessarily reflect his personal opinion or philosophy. Indeed, training as a lawyer teaches you to present viewpoints with which you may disagree. And Judge Roberts has made efforts to distance himself from briefs he has prepared, citing just this rationale. The author mentions the need to respect precedent. This is true at the Appelate level in that they do not have the authority to over-ride the Supreme Court, but it does not apply nearly as strong at the Supreme Court level. Indeed, several of the most controversial decisions of the past two terms were ones that overturned centuries of Supreme Court precedent (Lawrence v. Texas and the Kelo case jump to mind). I tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson that it is through stare decisis that the Republic has been so undermined. Just because something is precedential doesn't mean it is correct. I expect of any Bush nominee that when precedent conflicts with an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, the precedent always loses.
"He is also enamored of the fact that Roberts experience as a lawyer makes him qualified and makes the rather ridiculous assertion that this fact makes up for his lack of a judicial record."
US Supreme Court Justices agree that he is the best litigator that appears before him.
Scalia has said it. Cruz notes that Rehnquist said it.
O'Connor calls him first rate.
This should count for something.
"What does that do to address the problem about the paucity of the record? Nothing. Instead we are being asked to trust "people in the know" that Judge Roberts is a "solid" conservative."
He clerked for Rehnquist and worked in the Reagan and Bush administrations. He's been a Federal judge for 2 years. He's got enough of a record to know him.
"We've been down that road before and it's name is Souter."
Souter wasnt in the Federalist society.