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.
Well, I guess we won't know for sure until he gets a chance to vote to overturn one of the many bad liberal precedents set in the last few decades.
I personally don't believe that he will wind up as you say, i.e. as bad on dealing with bad precedent, but good on matters yet to reach the Court. Is there anyone like that on the high court?
I think he will go one way or the other. Either he'll be the Scalia/Thomas we hoped for, or a huge mistake in the mold of O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter.
So at a minimum, if he does not turn out to be a Scalia, then I at least hope that you are right and I am wrong. Certainly a judge who used conservative/originalist lenses in future jurisprudence would be preferable to 6 of the justices currently on the Court, even if he was worthless on correcting past wrongs.