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.
Roberts is a precedent believer, he values bad precedent over the constitution.
The white house messed up bad on this.
Roberts will be very conservative and an originalist on issues that haven't come before the supreme court before.
But on issues that have come before the court he will be like ruth bader ginsberg.
Look for roberts to vote in our favor for parental notification because there is no precedent for that but look for him to vote against us in all precedent cases.
No supreme court justices follows precedent as a rule of law it isn't even in the constitution.
The liberal justices overturned the death penalty precedent.
What is it with roberts and the rule of law with precedent.
How did the white house not vet this.
Having him respect all the bad precedents over the last 50 years is a defeat.
Damn the dems for blocking miguel estrada he was an originalist and he would have been the pick.