[Unam Sanctam]

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.

[Crooked Constituent]

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.

[MEG33]

Great answer by Judge Roberts.

[Logical me]

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.

[EagleUSA]

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.

[fhayek]

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?

[roaddog727]

Imagine that. A Judge who understands that his job is to apply the principles of the constitution.
Go figure........

[hflynn]

. . . 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.

[William Tell]

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.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

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.

[Let's Roll]

Anyone know when the full senate will vote on Judge Roberts?

[RAY]

"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."

"That would have been the farthest thing from their mind."As would, we can imagine, many negative things that have become common place in our present society.

One senses that Judge Roberts is an awesome intellect and will be an excellent Chief Justice.

The President is to be commended for this nomination.

[Les_Miserables]

Roberts is wrong that the oath requires him to "uphold" the Constitution. To wit:

US Code Sec. 453. Oaths of justices and judges

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: "I, ___ XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Not clear to me that under and uphold have the same crisp meaning...apparently its not clear to a number of the justices as well.