Replies

Just more evidence that there is actually NOTHING that indicates this man will be another Scalia when on the court.

He doesn't have to be another "Scalia". He was acting in the capacity of a lawyer, following the law. The rule of law means that things are ruled by LAW, not your preferences, and even viewpoints you don't agree with, are entitled to a fair hearing.

I have no problem with an independent legal mind being on the Supreme Court. There as a good reason why Bush chose Roberts, and we shouldn't be harping on him.

He doesn't have to be another "Scalia".

I can't count the number of times I've heard that we must support Bush for the sake of judicial nominees. Always the terms of this were 'Scalia-type' nominees.

There is a good reason why Bush chose Roberts, and we shouldn't be harping on him.

Okay, I'll bite. What exactly are those reasons? We've heard people say that when he worked for the government, that he was just representing his client. When he probono'd for the gay rights case that eventually overturned every state sodomy law, he was just being a good law firm partner. And the same for this 12 hours of assistance for his firm's Playboy case. Okay, fine, we'll toss all those out as being anything that tells us about him as a conservative jurist.

Having disposed of those, what reason do we have to believe he is liberal or independent or conservative? Once we throw out everything we know, what is left to commend him as the first of the 'Scalia-type' justices Bush was supposed to appoint?