[Congressman Billybob]

Farrah not only buys what the L.A. Times wrote, he extends it in what he writes. The Times description was exaggerated, and therefore false. Farrah makes it worse.

The Times is NOT trying to "reassure the Left." They are trying to get the knickers of the Right in a twist. And Farrah, being either a fool or overly excited, buys into the bit.

And yes, I can easily supply three written decisions by Roberts that are examples of "strict construction." The French fry in the metro case -- he said the police action was foolish, but within the Constitution. The arroyo toad case -- he wrote that the toad did not cross state lines, and therefore was unconstitutional. The no-license, no-registration auto case -- he wrote that it was good police work to search the car trunk.

Those who doubt that Roberts follows a strict view of the Constitution should read MORE of his words, and less of the second-, third-, and fourth-hand words about him, like this ill-informed piece by Farrah.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "The Washington Post Doesn't Have a Clue about Government Under a Written Constitution"

[goldstategop]

So he's in favor of presuming in favor of national security absent a clear abuse of federal power, doesn't want federal pre-emption in environmental matters and frowns on judicial second-guessing of police work. Put it that way, it appears he does follow a strict reading of the Constitution. It would be helpful to have him explain his understanding of judicial philosophy and the role of the courts in his appearance before the Senate next month. Roberts may be a good pick from what from you've stated but I do think its not unreasonable to hear him outline how he thinks judges should approach their role on the bench. We're after all talking about a lifetime appointment here. That being said I do look forward to the hearings next month. Then we'll know for sure more of what we hope the guy will be like once he's elevated to the Supreme Court.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[MonitorMaid]

Those who doubt that Roberts follows a strict view of the Constitution should read MORE of his words

I believe they've already read it but they have their own agenda which most can see right through.

[Archon of the East]

Those who doubt that Roberts follows a strict view of the Constitution...

Is a strict constructionist enough to restore our republic? It's a question that not many of us ask yet given the enormity of bad decisions and precedent over the last 70 years (OK 200) I think we need to consider it. Now I am not advocating activism but I am suggesting that we need to look into whether a candidate supports not only the structure of the Constitution but also whether they adhere to Natural law principle's it was built on.

I don't know if it's possible. We may be to far gone at this point to ever return to the point where we can continue the ideas of our Founder's, to perfect their concepts of self Government. I just don't think that a mere strict constructionist is enough...IMO

[Smartaleck]

"And Farrah, being either a fool or overly excited, buys into the bit."

Some might say "useful idiot"?