Judge Roberts: I'll Respect Legal Precedents


PDA






aquapong
August 3, 2005, 03:15 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164561,00.html

Even if some are wrong? He just lost my support. Telling Specter and Santorum will probably be like talking to a wall, but I'll contact them anyway.

If you enjoyed reading about "Judge Roberts: I'll Respect Legal Precedents" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Rockstar
August 3, 2005, 03:20 PM
aquapong: Don't be so hasty. What he says now, while trying go get the DimwitoCRATs to support his nomination and what he does after being appointed FOR LIFE, are two different situations. There's no penalty for a Supreme Court Justice's having lied during the confirmation process. ;) The reason that it's just stupid to insist on a lithmus test for judicial appointments is that there's no way to know what the sense of the law will be in 40 years or how a judge/justice will think next week, let alone 40 years from now.

WYO
August 3, 2005, 03:33 PM
I agree with Rockstar. In addition, you can abide by precedent but strictly construe it to the facts before the court in the pior case and thereby distinguish from the next case.

publius
August 3, 2005, 04:05 PM
He has to say stuff like that now. I hope he doesn't mean it when it comes to precedents like Kelo and Raich/Stewart. Not much use gnashing your teeth over it at this point, whether he means it or not. He'll be confirmed, it appears, and we'll find out with each case whether he's a friend of the rule of law.

Waitone
August 3, 2005, 04:14 PM
What if a case comes before the court, say Kelo Parte Deux, where the facts in the case challenge the original decision of the court to redefine public need. I suspect he would have no problems going off in a different direction if that is where the facts take him.

Roberts is being coached by some of the best political and congressional minds the spinelessrepublicans can muster :what:

Doomed, he's doomed :uhoh:

Rockstar
August 3, 2005, 04:16 PM
Well, the good news is, if he were being coached by DimwitoCRATs, he'd be somebody being coached by folks both brainless and spineless.

Vang
August 3, 2005, 05:32 PM
Every justice would say the same thing. Justices have to have some respect for precedent; a law that constantly changes is not easy for citizens to deal with.

Coltdriver
August 3, 2005, 05:45 PM
I hope that is code for "the constitution being the original legal precedant" ;)

Kurush
August 3, 2005, 06:42 PM
In addition, you can abide by precedent butWho said anything about abiding, he just said he respects them. I have a lot of respect for Bu... err Cli... ummm Jimmy Carter but I couldn't care less what he thinks about anything.

Sam Adams
August 3, 2005, 06:54 PM
I respected my grandparents a lot (when they were alive), but I disagreed with their stance on gun control. Respect doesn't mean agreement with.

The problem here is that Roberts cannot answer direct questions about his stance on issues - it is forbidden under the Judicial Canon of Ethics. The Dems know this, too, but hate it (except for one of theirs, like Ginsberg), so they are reduced to asking him very hypothetical questions about general judicial philosophy. Roberts can, in turn, give very general and hypothetical (i.e. nearly meaningless) responses...and he's well beyond the level of intelligence needed to do so.

I'm not too worried about him. I think that he's a Constitutional Originalist, and that he's in our corner on the 2nd. The fact that the Dems, esp. the foaming-at-the-mouth anti-gun Dems, are nearly having strokes over Roberts is a very encouraging sign.

Boats
August 3, 2005, 08:12 PM
Like you can't respectfully bury someone you don't like? If you read the story, the liberal groups jumped him for not explicitly saying he'd support Roe v. Wade.

beerslurpy
August 3, 2005, 09:36 PM
If Roberts is any one thing, it is clever. "Obeying precedent" can be misconstrued in all sorts of clever ways.

It can mean anything from full-fledged New Deal worship to reaching back to the Lochner era or the ante-bellum rulings to show how the most recent precedents "might be internally inconsistent" or "not fully settled law".

"Obeying precedent" is restrictive in the same sense that "only reading from the bible" is- there is enough in there that you can pretty much use it to justify anything you want.

Walt Sherrill
August 4, 2005, 02:15 PM
SAM ADAMS wrote:The problem here is that Roberts cannot answer direct questions about his stance on issues - it is forbidden under the Judicial Canon of Ethics. The Dems know this, too, but hate it (except for one of theirs, like Ginsberg), so they are reduced to asking him very hypothetical questions about general judicial philosophy. Roberts can, in turn, give very general and hypothetical (i.e. nearly meaningless) responses...and he's well beyond the level of intelligence needed to do so.Do you have a reference or a link to more information on this matter? I could find no meaningful references to the Judidial Canon of Ethics, anywhere. I'd like to know more.

Zrex
August 4, 2005, 02:24 PM
Don't be so hasty. What he says now, while trying go get the DimwitoCRATs to support his nomination and what he does after being appointed FOR LIFE, are two different situations. There's no penalty for a Supreme Court Justice's having lied during the confirmation process.
So what you are saying that in order for you to justify your support for this guy, you must assume he is a liar and a fraud? :scrutiny:

Sam Adams
August 4, 2005, 02:36 PM
Check out: http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/ch1.html

Specifically, look at the commentary to Canon 1, as well as the commentary to Canon 3, Part A, #6. BTW, Ginsberg regularly refused to answer such questions, as did Scalia, and both of them were not only correct to do so, but won by overwhelming majorities (something in excess of 90 votes each).

Walt Sherrill
August 4, 2005, 04:18 PM
Thanks for the link. As luck would have it, I found it about 20 minutes before I saw your response.

Rockstar
August 4, 2005, 04:44 PM
"So what you are saying that in order for you to justify your support for this guy, you must assume he is a liar and a fraud?"

No, as a matter of fact, I shouldn't have used the example of lying, but rather, that of reserving the right to change one's opinions over a period of time. I don't know whether he'll be a good, conservative justice or not, but then, neither does anybody else on this board.

Anybody who'd say the kind of things that would receive a ringing endorsement here would never find him/herself in a postion to be considered for appointment to the Supreme Court, anywho.

ajkurp
August 4, 2005, 08:42 PM
So...Roberts is obscuring his real position on constitutional issues to pass muster, presumably at which time he will show his true libertarian colors?

Like WMD Bush and his support for gun control? (Send me the AWB bill and I'll sign it.)

I remind you that it is WMD's administration that just recently forbade the importation of barrels for parts kits.

With friends like this.....

gc70
August 4, 2005, 09:37 PM
Maybe Roberts is obscuring his views on some questions because his views are not relevant. Some judges actually decide cases based on the law and the facts rather than on thier personal views. We can only hope that Roberts is such a judge.

Dmack_901
August 4, 2005, 09:53 PM
He said he'd respect legal precedents. He didn't say he wouldn't make his own and overturn the bad ones. I respect Rove V. Wade, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't change it in a heartbeat.

I just read Protect and Defend, and it seems real pertinant(spelling?). He seems to be doing the same as the nominee in the book(and really exactly what I'd expect). He's just blabbering about nothing and avoiding questions and hiding his personal opinions. That, or he truely doesn't have any personal opinions. ; ).

If you enjoyed reading about "Judge Roberts: I'll Respect Legal Precedents" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!