Replies

Exactly my point. It looks like history will repeat itself. To be fair, Souter had a more extensive paper trail than Roberts has and he seemed almost too perfect. Once he got on the U.S Supreme Court, he turned out to be a grave disappointment. There are no guarantees in naming SCOTUS Justices. President Eisenhower was once said to have remarked his greatest regret was naming Earl Warren Chief Justice. There's something about the SCOTUS that encourages judicial activism - perhaps a reflection of the fact its immune to normal constitutional checks and balances and is effectively answerable only to itself.

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

... There are no guarantees in naming SCOTUS Justices. ...

Well, the only absolute guarantees in life are death and taxes. However, there are some virtual guarantees in naming SCOTUS Justices. Bork was definitely a conservative when he was railroaded by the Democrats. Ted Olson, although much older than Roberts, would've been a slam-dunk conservative on the Supreme Court. There wouldn't be much mystery to him like there is with Roberts. An Olson nomination would've been worth it just to see the steam come out of Chillary's ears. And with Republicans controlling the Senate, it would've forced Democrats to explain what about Olson is "extraordinary" to prompt a filibuster.

It looks to me like Bush was thinking about the confirmation hearings when he nominated Roberts more than he was thinking about the impact he'll have on the Supreme Court. If Bush really wanted to move the court to the right, he would've nominated a known conservative who is on record repeatedly stating his own opinions on issues of the day, not just the opinions of his clients.

If he doesn't have any problems with accepting gay behavior at face value, what's to stop him from sanctioning gay marriage?

There is a difference between acceptance of the behavior of someone and the rule of law. I work/ed with homosexuals and do not approve of their behavior, but if they were unjustly singled out, I would defend them. I have also worked with spouse cheaters and the disliked their behavior even more since children were involved. But, in any case, they deserved the protection of the law.

If we are going to allow only those who we agree with to be defended, then we have become a totalitarian state.