Posted on 05/22/2006 12:27:13 AM PDT by RWR8189
WASHINGTON, May 21 (AP) — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said Sunday that he was seeking greater consensus on the Supreme Court, adding that more consensus would be likely if controversial issues could be decided on the "narrowest possible grounds."
In a 15-minute address to Georgetown University law graduates, Chief Justice Roberts, 51, sketched a vision for leading a court sharply divided on issues like abortion, the death penalty and gay rights.
"If it is not necessary to decide more to a case, then in my view it is necessary not to decide more to a case," Chief Justice Roberts said. "Division should not be artificially suppressed, but the rule of law benefits from a broader agreement. The broader the agreement among the justices, the more likely it is a decision on the narrowest possible grounds."
His comments come as the court is under criticism by some members of Congress who say the justices have overreached in decisions that struck down the death penalty for juveniles and allowed cities to use eminent domain powers to take homes for private economic development.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Doesn't sound like a conservative, but then I'm not a lawyer.
I think he is speaking in a language foreign to ordinary citizens. Could it be that he is saying something we ordinary conservatives don't want to hear?
I'd say this is a conservative (small c) approach. If you try to get 9 very smart people to agree on anything in a case, it is likely to be a very limited agreement. This means the decision will be narrow and limited, ie. conservative (again, small c). However, if you are a Conservative (big C), and all you care about is the outcome regardless of whether or not its 5 justices or 9, then this isn't likely to be a favorable approach for Conservatives.
Great;
A supremem oourt leader who is afraid to lead...not important decisions just consensus. We like this guy because?
Their role is to decide matters based on the US Constitution and its laws. We have had Roe v. Wade (and other spurious rulings) forced on our country, because of broad answers to questions not properly asked. This will require direct attention to the center of the controversy, not the peripheral issues which allow things to become settled without getting down to the "nitty gritty". It can actually bring change for the better!
You nailed it.
Roberts is a genius. Read between the lines: he is going to move his court away from the till-now frequent 5-4 "divided-court" rulings...due to his superior legal mind persuading his less-brilliant (i.e. lefty) colleagues to vote with him on "narrow" (a-hem) grounds. It has already started. So far, he has gotten an stunning number of unanimous rulings.
We will not know if bush did us any good (on judges) for many years. theres no need to wait on many other issues. he's sold us down the river.
The vote is still out on Bush's appointees - it ISN'T in the case of the border and illegal invaders.
Bsuh has stuck a knife in the backs of the conservatives who put him in office and twisted it around.
You definitely nailed it.
It's very classically conservative. Understandable that it might not be easily recognized in today's RINO atmosphere.
Thank you for a good analysis. You're dead on.
If the consensus he seeks is a conservative consensus, than more power to him.
It depends on the meaning of the word consensus.
Brother! Are you ever Clinton fatigued!!!
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.