|
Finding rulings by Judge Roberts is near impossible. Finding more generic information about him indicates that he sees the judicial role as one of strict legal interpretation and not expansion. This is a hopeful sign.
Additionally it seems that the far left leaning segments of our society are coming out with great concerns:
People for the American Way is extremely disappointed that the President did not choose a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor.
But consensus is not a way to decide Constitutionality. To believe so implies that interpretation can change over time.
If the time comes that the Constitution requires change, it has a defined procedure that does not involve any small group's judicial interpretation. It involves Congressional action and state approvals.
“At this time, Alliance for Justice cannot support Judge Roberts’ elevation to the Supreme Court.
In nominating John Roberts, the president has chosen a right wing corporate lawyer and ideologue for the nation's highest court instead of a judge who would protect the rights of the American people.
We can only assume that using the bench to legislate new law is their interpretation of protecting people's rights. I would prefer a judge let the Constitution protect my rights.
Left leaning politicians are currently soft-pedaling their reaction. Expect the honeymoon to quickly end. Kennedy, Schumer and their ilk will come out vehemently against Roberts, not because of any one determination (there are not many) but because Roberts does not believe in the use of the bench to make new law. The left will use this to scare their believers about the 'loss of liberty'.
Hopefully more moderate Democrats will see Roberts for who he is and approve. The far left will show the nation, once again, what they are about.
In the mean time, Roberts' stock is rising.
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
