Skip to comments.
Chief Justice Roberts
Weekly Standard ^
| 9/26/2005
| Terry Eastland
Posted on 09/17/2005 8:40:29 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
Roberts took care on numerous occasions to emphasize the importance of the distinction between law and politics as it relates to judging. For example, in response to Lindsey Graham's question about what the judge regarded as the biggest threats to the rule of law today, Roberts identified only one threat--the "tendency on behalf of some judges to take . . . [their] authority and extend it into areas where they're going beyond the interpretation of the Constitution, where they're making the law"--the province of elected officials. He observed: "Judges have to recognize that their role is a limited one. That is the basis of their legitimacy. I've said it before and I'll just repeat myself: The Framers were not the sort of people, having fought a revolution to get the right of self-government, to sit down and say, 'Let's take all the difficult issues before us and let's have the judges decide them.' That would have been the farthest thing from their mind."I hadn't heard this soundbite with Lindsay Graham. Judge Roberts hit the nail right on the head here.
To: Unam Sanctam
Judge Roberts answered correctly. It is unfortunate that republicans nominate fair judges and democrats nominate partisans.
Even with Bush's two picks, we'll hold the slightest of margins on the Supreme Court.
To: Unam Sanctam
Great answer by Judge Roberts.
3
posted on
09/17/2005 8:43:12 AM PDT
by
MEG33
(GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES)
To: Unam Sanctam
Judge Roberts is the most articulate and brilliant Judge I have ever heard. And he speaks without scripts, because of that I totally believe him.
4
posted on
09/17/2005 8:45:00 AM PDT
by
Logical me
(Oh, well!!!)
To: Unam Sanctam
Judge Roberts hit the nail right on the head here.
------
Yes he did. And he did everything just short of calling our the liberal activists on the SCOTUS. He shows much hope and promise.
5
posted on
09/17/2005 8:47:17 AM PDT
by
EagleUSA
To: Unam Sanctam
how do you view [the] law when it comes to expanding our personal freedom? With taxation, regulation, eminent domain, kyoto, protectionism, opposition to social security reform, rampant environmentalism and other forms of socialism.... since when are democrats concerned with personal freedom?
6
posted on
09/17/2005 8:47:20 AM PDT
by
fhayek
To: fhayek
since when are democrats concerned with personal freedom? They are very concerned with their personal freedom...and the imposition of their views and control on all who disagree with them.
7
posted on
09/17/2005 8:48:47 AM PDT
by
peyton randolph
(Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
To: Crooked Constituent
Congress needs to ELIMINATE all the federal judicial districts - they are not authorized by the Constitution as written and it would be a quick and simple way to destroy the radical judicial tyrannical judges.
They can always come back a month later and say "oops - we need to restart the fed districts and just appoint very few REAL judges this time around.
8
posted on
09/17/2005 8:50:29 AM PDT
by
hombre_sincero
(www.sigmaitsys.com)
To: Crooked Constituent
Even with Bush's two picks, we'll hold the slightest of margins on the Supreme Court.
------
And this is the tragedy for our country, that now infests our SCOTUS. This body should NOT in any way, be partisan. Their job, as Roberts so perfectly states it, it to interpret established, written law and apply it. Period.
Of course we know that the liberal activists will continue to use the SCOTUS to enable their agenda of establishing radical liberalism as an institution in America. They need to be cleaned out.
9
posted on
09/17/2005 8:50:49 AM PDT
by
EagleUSA
To: Unam Sanctam
Imagine that. A Judge who understands that his job is to apply the principles of the constitution.
Go figure........
10
posted on
09/17/2005 8:56:01 AM PDT
by
roaddog727
(P=3/8 A. or, P=plenty...............)
To: Logical me
If only Bork had not been torpedoed we would not have Justice kennedy. Bork was (is) a brilliant constituional lawyer.
Instead, the democrats forced kennedy on our country who in turn is a certified socialist and was the lead in the ruling where one citizen can use the law to take property from another citizen....the most anti-American ruling in memory.
To: Unam Sanctam
. . . The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do."
This statement alone is why Roberts will not receive a single vote from the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.
12
posted on
09/17/2005 9:08:47 AM PDT
by
hflynn
( Soros wouldn't make any sense even if he spelled his name backwards)
To: Crooked Constituent
Aren't most of the liberal justices GOP nominees? Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, and O'Connor were nominated by Republicans.
13
posted on
09/17/2005 9:14:55 AM PDT
by
hoppity
To: Crooked Constituent
I disagree.
Even if the second one is a strict constructionist or originalist, we are one more justice shy of 5.
To: Unam Sanctam
From Roberts' comments:
The Framers were not the sort of people, having fought a revolution to get the right of self-government, to sit down and say, 'Let's take all the difficult issues before us and let's have the judges decide them.' That would have been the farthest thing from their mind." It would also be the farthest from our Founders' minds to have Congress or the President deciding.
To: hflynn
He will get some D votes, not all, but some.
To: William Tell
There is a clear thought.
Even Congress and the President are not to trample on the rights secured by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
In that case, the SCOTUS should strike them down. Not adjust it, reinterpret it...but just strike it down.
To: Unam Sanctam
How is it that liberals can think they are expanding personal freedom when they are taxing people to death. A persons "personal freedom" is completely tied to his right to keep what he has earned. I guess liberals think that while a person is having sex with whomever and getting gov't to recognize it as special, that they won't notice when the government robs them blind.
Anyway...your Roberts quote is great. My problem is that he seems to contradict that here and there. In fact, I don't know how he can say that and then feel good about being part of the Romer case. I guess he blames the judges and accepts no responsibility himself. I think lawyers who take cases like that -- for free -- share the blame. At least make these activists (who know exactly what they are doing to the rule of law) pay for the legal fees so that, if nothing else, they will eventually run out of money.
To: joyspring777
IMHO he will not get a single vote from any Democrat on the committee. The White House strategy for the next nominee is going to be to select someone who mirrors Roberts as closely as possible. No Democrat on the committee wants to put himself or herself in the position of defending a Yes vote for Roberts and a No vote for a Roberts clone.
19
posted on
09/17/2005 9:31:22 AM PDT
by
hflynn
( Soros wouldn't make any sense even if he spelled his name backwards)
To: fhayek
In this context I think you can safely substitute Homosexual Activists' Agenda for personal freedom.
20
posted on
09/17/2005 9:35:23 AM PDT
by
lastchance
(Hug your babies.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson