In his confirmation testimony two years ago, Roberts said that judges should be "ever mindful that they are insulated from democratic pressures precisely because the Framers expected them to be discerning law, not shaping policy," and added: "That means that judges should not look to their own personal views or preferences in deciding the cases before them. Their commission is no license to impose their preferences from the bench."
So what's the truth??
Just not good enough.
Equivalent to "Roberts' supporters say ..."
I see. Even tho we keep winning elections, we should cower.
Does this mean that we can expect the inferior and underqualified Clement to be nominated to replace Rehnquist? If so than it would be a great disappointment. Another 6 months will be enough time for Janice Rogers-Brown to have served on the Circuit Court. I mean c'mon, she served for years of the Supreme Court of our largest state. That ought to be enough. Edith Clement would be a capitulation to Liberals.
This strikes me as Novak covering his butt after predicting Clement would be the nominee. Sorry, but I think Novak has been wrong so much in the last five years that he warrants little attention from anyone.
"A link to the Federalist Society, which has been highly critical of the Supreme Court's liberal decisions, could be used to attack Roberts's judicial objectivity.
Could be used?!? Sheesh, buy a clue Novak.
My fine senator, DICKhead 'Turban' Durbin (and future EX senator) brought it up only about 97 gazillion times during the 'debate' on Priscilla Owens while he was on the senate floor spewing his idiotic tripe.
He basically called the Federalist Society a nefarious organization and equated it with an evil cabal of satanic cannibals. Conversely, being a card carrying member of the communistic ACLU is hunky dory.