rideside.net

home | archive | comics | about

reply to the comment you are replying too

archive / 2005 / 09 / 13

Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-09-13 13:59:17 +0000

Specter going to the mat over Roe v. Wade

I'm watching the confirmation proceedings for Roberts (<a href = "http://www.cspan.org/watch/index.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS3&ShowVidDays=30&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30">cspan3 streaming video</a>), and so far Specter has REALLY been grilling him on Roe v. Wade, precedent, etc. Both him and Roberts are very fond of the legal term <a href = "http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s065.htm"><i>stare decisis</i></a>.

Roberts will probably and unfortunately be confirmed. From all that I've read of him, he seems sort of like an ultra-Rehnquist.

He just tried to explain what he meant by "so-called right to privacy," saying that he wrote that based on the views of the Justice Dept. on that certain case at that certain time. Perhaps this will be his defense of ALL of his previous writings (seeing as how he has virtually nothing while on the bench).

This fellow is very well schooled in lawyer-speak. But Specter is still challenging his logic!
Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-09-13 14:12:31 +0000
This is high drama. Leahy's grilling him on the separation of powers, and who exactly has the power to END a war. So far, Roberts is only conceding that Congress has the "power of the purse" in such cases. Which may, in fact, be the case. I'd have to read up on that. Leahy thinks otherwise.
Posted by tgl on 2005-09-13 14:39:11 +0000
Anything about the Commerce Clause as it relates to the hapless toads of California?
Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-09-13 15:00:18 +0000
No toads so far : ) But Hatch did just bring up the Commerce Clause! Roberts is saying that the SJC can not strike down legislation. But then he said that the SJC can rule on the constitutionality of legislation, and that that is NOT judicial activism. I wish Hatch had asked him to clarify what seems to be a contradiction.

So far, overall I'm actually starting to like Roberts somewhat, at least moreso than before. Weird.

Kennedy's up...
Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-09-13 15:15:11 +0000
Jack Nicholson should portray the modern-day Teddy K. if his biopic is ever filmed.
Posted by tgl on 2005-09-13 15:48:46 +0000
I'm not too concerned with Roberts. Call me naive. Even if he turns out to be ultra-Rehnqust, he's still far better than a ultra-Scalia or ultra-Thomas.
Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-09-13 15:48:50 +0000
This is a good <a href = "http://newsblog.nationaljournal.com/">blog</a> for highlights of the confirmation hearings.
Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-09-13 16:00:06 +0000
It's a difficult thing, to be more ultra than Scalia.

Ultimately, the only way we're actually going to figure out what this guy really thinks is to read his opinions once he's on the court. So far, the only thing he's really bristled over has been Kennedy's attempt to dissect his work with the renewal of the Voting Rights Act during the Reagan Administration. I'd like to see more bristling.
Posted by tgl on 2005-09-13 16:34:03 +0000
Roberts is either completely fair and even handed with well-defined and well-formed opinions vis-a-vis the role of the Court, federalism, the role of Congress, etc., or he's a a nutjob waiting to explode.

Hard to tell at this point. ;)

---

I'd take Scalia over Thomas. Thomas has absolutely no regard for past precedent. He's voted something like 35 times to overturn past decisions. Scalia is not even close in that regard. Talk about activist judges.
Find me on github.