Sunday Papers
Good morning.
The Washington Post editorial page analyzes Roberts's Justice Department memos and concludes that he was:
The Los Angeles Times' did an admittedly unscientific survey of ordinary people and found awareness of the O'Connor resignation and of the nomination but little knowledge of the details. But:Fully in tune with the staunchly conservative legal views of the administration he was serving -- and indeed, at times to the right of some of its leading conservative lawyers.
Adam Liptak and Todd S. Purdum, in the New York Times, have interviewed Roberts's fellow Rehnquist clerks:
They offered a revealing portrait of an affable, ambitious and frankly conservative intellectual, much like his boss.
In the New York Times Magazine Jeffrey Rosen writes of liberal fears of rightward change at the court and concludes that:
Even if the court is, in fact, transformed, the consequences might be far less severe than liberals imagine.
There seemed to be little appetite, even among Democrats, for the partisan warfare that sunk the nomination of federal judge Robert Bork in 1987, or the political acrimony that turned the 1991 Clarence Thomas hearings into a national psychodrama.The Williamsport Sun Gazette endorses reports, saying "he appears to represent the mainstream in America, and that is precisely what we need in a new Supreme Court justice. Here is Newsweek's main Roberts story for Monday. For more good weekend reading see: Jonathan Rauch on the shape of a new Supreme Court.
Legally, incremental change seems more likely than revolution, continuity more likely than reversal. Politically, conservatives may be in for a surprise: The more conservative the Court, the more divided the conservatives.Stuart Taylor Jr., in The Atlantic, "Remote Control."
The Supreme Court's greatest failing is not ideological bias--it's the justices' increasingly tenuous grasp of how the real world worksMatthew Continetti, Weekly Standard, "John Roberts' Other Papers: Portrait of the judge as an undergraduate." For humor, see what Article III Groupie has to say at Underneath Their Robes: News, Gossip and Colorful Commentary about the Federal Judiciary
By Fred Barbash |
July 31, 2005; 9:36 AM ET
| Category:
For the Record
Previous: Dems OK date; Want documents. |
Next: Dodd: Roberts 'probably a pretty good choice.'
Posted by: murray j. friedman | August 1, 2005 02:57 PM
In response to Mr. Friedman's comment, I must note that that was one of the most paranoid and hate-filled statements I have seen in some time.
The concept of original intent is not one that prefers the 1789 document to the modern amended document. What the concept refers to is the idea that the text should be read as the framers intended, which means that the Commerce Clause should be interpreted consistently with how Jefferson and Hamilton would have interpreted it, and the 14th Amendment should be interpreted consistently with the way the framers of that (very important) amendment intended as well.
To ascribe novel interpretations to a historical document is the same as rewriting the document, which is the functional equivalent of a coup d'etat.
The constitution is a historical document with its own defense mechanisms against such revisionism - the amendment process. According to its own terms, the constitution may only be amended by going through a difficult and complicated process. This process was designed to ensure that fundamental changes to the document are only done under the most democratic conditions, not at the whim of 5 justices who are not even subject to the political process. That said, there are 26 amendments to the constitution, which means that the process is not so burdensome to make it impossible.
Posted by: Bill Baxter | August 2, 2005 12:52 PM
If my comments were the most paranoid and hateful ever experienced, someone has led a very charmed life. Of course, engaging in character assassination before debating the issues is typical right wing behavior and actually undermines the rreasonable response which followed.
I am glad to learn that Republicans accept that Amendments to the Constitution are consistent with the founding fathers intentions and that they actually will support legislative attempts ensure equal rights protections for all Americans including ethnic groups, women, homosexuals, atheists, the poor, the sick, and even Democratic voters. Hallelujah!
Posted by: Murray J. Friedman | August 16, 2005 08:15 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
When conservatives talk about original
intent of the founding fathers they really want to nullify the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth admendments. While they don't want to return to slavery (at least here in the U.S.) they have never been compfortable with the idea of equal rights; whether for blacks, females, immigrants , the poor or the disenfranchized. That's why they always show knee jerk opposition to civil rights, civil liberties, consumer rights, or equal rights for women or the rights of ordinary citizens to stand up to corporate exploitation. While they tolerate token admission of members of other groups, their primary agenda is to preserve the advantage held by largely white, male, affluent and privileged people like themselves and if that includes those who profess fundamental religious values that's o.k. too , providin it does not clash with the needs of their rich and greedy corporate friends.