"Just point me to the emanations from the penumbra of the Constitution and I'll take a look at it."
Amazing. This is THE issue, and it eclipses the light of all others for some. But conservatives are intolerant.
Nothing like perpetuating a mistake, to make people respect the system.
His answer on precedent is a little scary, but I think if they could ask him a more pointed question it might be clearer.
I believe that, if we are talking about the interpretation of a law, the judge, even the Supreme Court, should follow previous interpretations of that law from previous court cases, even if that interpretation is at odds with what they think the law means.
That would be prudent, because if the legislature disagreed with how the court had interpreted the law, they could have changed it -- therefore, since they haven't changed it, they must like the way the law is working, and having judges simply change what the law "means" would be activist.
HOWEVER, if the court ruling was to prohibit the legislature from acting, based on a bad interpretation of the constitution, a new judge should NOT give the same weight to that precedent, since there was no way a legislature could have corrected a misinterpretation.
So, a precedent on the civil rights act of 1964 set in 1970 should be considered settled law, but Roe V. Wade should not.
Changing Supreme Court justices is the only way we can fix mistakes in interpretation of the constitution, so it has to be OK for justices to throw out previous rulings.
For those who say we can change the constitution, it doesn't matter -- if the court can get the current wording wrong, or ignore it, they will be able to make the same mistakes or interpretations on any amendment we make.
If "no law prohibiting free exercise" can mean "laws prohibiting exercise", and if "for public use" can mean "for private development", and "shall not be infringed" can mean "regulate and restrict all you want", what words could you possibly put in that couldn't be made to mean whatever an activist judge wants.
IOW Judge Bork is right in that we can expect another do nothing "ratchet judge"
The looneys turn us left, and like a ratchet wrench the supposed conservatives do nothing when the movement is for the right.
The left overturns hardwick without hesitation, but the right cringes at not eliminating bad decisions.
Hopefully, Roberts means that he will respect good precedent, not bad. It is absurd to respect the latter, and seeing as how new precedent has been established in the last 50 years by the Left on most fronts in the Culture War, to do so would guarantee final victory for the radical, court-imposed social revolution.
I agree with those who think that the GOP is missing an opportunity to lead the public in a debate over judicial philosophy and the proper role of Courts. Basically, what Mark Levin says here;
http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/071476.asp
If the GOP is not willing to take up this fight, then the idea of Judicial Supremacy will never be challenged.
So he has to prepare an 84 page response?
That's the whole problem with the government in a nutshell!
Millions upon millions of pages of laws and other garbage are written annually, by thousands upon thousands of "writers", that nobody; that's nobody, reads, prior to voting upon the proposed law or regulation.
Can't things be boiled down into a few pages at most, so at least these politicians can attempt to comprehend what they are supposed to vote upon? Ya,know, something like the brevity of the Constitution?
In Roberts case he should have written FU! Strong letter to follow!