My daughter was in a small college seminar group with Roberts a few years ago. He said that his general philosophy is to leave decisions to the people in the decisions made by their elected representatives, since, in his opinion, it is much easier to change the Congress than it is to change the members of the Court.
So why even have a Supreme Court, then, if it fails to enforce limited powers? Roberts just turned himself into a turnstile that never locks.
posted on 06/30/2012 6:34:19 AM PDT
Well, they do say no law was declared unconstitutional from 1937 to 1995, right? So it really hardly ever functions as a restraint on Congressional power any way. I guess the main argument for trying to control a super-majority of the Court is to try to keep them from making up new laws.... except that’s what legacy seeking Roberts just did.
posted on 06/30/2012 6:43:47 AM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson