Posted on 02/03/2007 7:24:53 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Thursday told students and faculty at the Northwestern University School of Law that he believes the high court functions best when justices focus narrowly on the case at hand.
Justices run great risks when they go beyond the specifics of the case and attempt to set public policy, said Roberts, a strict constructionist confirmed in his post in September 2005.
"Judges should act like judges, not like statesmen," Roberts said in response to a student question following a lecture at the university.
The talk concluded the first of Roberts' two days as Howard J. Trienens Visiting Judicial Scholar at Northwestern. He noted that the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, for whom he served as clerk, was the first jurist to participate in the program.
Roberts' lecture focused on four key former chief justices: John Jay, John Marshall, William Howard Taft, and Charles Evans Hughes. Roberts, 52, noted that Jay - the first chief justice - was appointed at age 43 and resigned after less than six years, complaining of a lack of challenge. He said Jay's one great contribution to the high court came when he declined reappointment several years later, which led to the appointment of Marshall, whom Roberts called the greatest justice to hold the post.
Roberts praised Taft, a former president, with being the most skilled judicial administrator in Supreme Court history. He said Taft's successor, Hughes, "defended the Supreme Court in the most serious attack in its history," which he defined as President Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed 1937 "court-packing" plan to appoint additional justices favorable to his New Deal agenda.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
John Roberts is far more mild-mannered and conflict-averse than Antonin Scalia, but they seem to believe the same things.
Bush has made mistakes on domestic spending, border security, and trade, but on judges he has done the nation good.
I like John Roberts. He will be the greatest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
I am now reading this book, I highly recomend it.
The Tyranny of Tolerance by Robert H. Jr Dierker
Quote:
The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault (Hardcover)
by Robert H. Jr Dierker
Book Description
For the first time, a sitting judge blows the whistle on America’s out-of-control courts.
A judge for more than twenty years, Robert Dierker has enjoyed a distinguished legal career.
But now that career may be on the line.
Why?
Because he is breaking the code of silence that has long kept judges from speaking out to present a withering account of how radical liberals run roughshod over the Constitution, waging war on the laws of nature, the laws of reason, and the law of God.
Even those outraged by America’s courts will be shocked by Judge Dierker’s story of activist judges, deep-pocketed special interest groups, pandering politicians, and others who claim to stand for tolerance, equal rights, and social justice, but actually stand for something quite different—something closer to totalitarianism.
Citing not only Judge Dierker’s own experiences but dozens of other recent court cases, The Tyranny of Tolerance shows how the courts enable left-wing activists to ram their dangerous agenda down the throats of the American people. Consider:
• Why do the courts claim the power to tax us?
• Why is a Christian fired when he voices opposition to his employer’s favoring homosexuals?
• Why are airline pilots sued and sent to “diversity training” for recommending that suspicious-looking people of Middle Eastern appearance be kept off planes?
• Why does a judge who defends a monument to the Ten Commandments in a courthouse lose his job?
• Why are speech codes imposed on employers, university students, lawyers (and judges!), while “artistic” indecency is protected from even the mildest regulation?
• Why are peaceful abortion protesters thrown in jail, their right to free speech crushed?
• Why are white and Asian students denied admission to colleges and universities in the name of “diversity”?
• Why is an enemy fighter captured in Afghanistan granted access to U.S. federal courts, overturning judicial precedent safeguarding the president’s wartime powers—to say nothing of common sense?
With this passionate insider’s account, Judge Dierker reminds Americans what’s at stake in the battle for the courts: the Constitution, the success of the war on terrorism, the freedom to worship God, the ability to keep our families safe, the institution of marriage, and much more.
Fortunately, Judge Dierker shows how we can defeat the radical liberals’ tyranny of tolerance. By wresting back control of the courts and restoring the legal, moral, and religious principles embedded in the Constitution, we can ultimately reclaim the republic the Founders bequeathed to us.
About the Author
Robert H. Dierker Jr. is a circuit judge of the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit of Missouri. Before becoming a judge in 1986, he clerked for the Missouri Court of Appeals, worked in private practice, and served as assistant and associate counselor for the City of St. Louis. Judge Dierker holds his A.B. degree from St. Louis University, his J.D. degree from the University of Missouri at Kansas City, and his LL.M. degree from Harvard University.
Thanks for the heads-up on the book. Perhaps he will be a Federal Judge someday.
I found a brief bio that includes a picture of him. He looks like he stepped out of the 1950's.
http://www.randomhouse.com/author/results.pperl?authorid=69836
The thing about the conservatives on the Supreme Court is they are much much younger than the liberals. Too bad I don't see a candidate in 2008 that will put conservative judges on the court. We would be guarenteed a Conservative majority on the supreme court if we had another 4 years.
"Too bad I don't see a candidate in 2008 that will put conservative judges on the court."
If a Republican is elected in 2008 (even if it's Guliani) and the conservative grass roots keeps his feet to the fire if a vacancy occurs, they can make it happen. Bush backed down on Harriet Miers, after all.
I still think there is a good chance Bush will get one more vacancy.
Guiliani is a stong supporter of choice. There is no way he is gonna nominate someone he thinks would change the balance of the court. It wasn't just conservative grass roots who opposed Harriet, it was virtually everyone.
ANN COULTER APOLOGISTS: Ann never said that. How DARE you question the judgement of her all holiness Ann Coulter. You must be a Democrat if you disagree with Ann. Ann is NEVER wrong.
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.