Roberts Is in the Mold of Rehquist, Not Scalia or Thomas....

[tritsofme]

I hear a lot of pundits saying this, like its supposed to be reassuring to Democrats.

But what exactly does that mean?

When's the last time Rehquist strayed from the Scalia line on any issue of any importance?

[housewolf]

1. Thomas & Scalia are Federalist Society lawyers

They're what's called "originalists" or "strict constructionists" meaning that when they look at the constitution and don't see something specifically spelled out there, in their minds it's "not constitutional."

Thus there have been many laws and court decisions that they believe are not based on the consitution and should be repealed or rolled back. This includes the right to privacy, environmental regulations, the New Deal programs - a broad panapoly of what has created the fabric of our nation.

Rehnquist is not a Federalist Society strict constructionalist. That's the keyword "strict constructionallist." There is agreement and then there are shades of agreement. Scalia, Thomas & Rehnquist may agree on a decision but come to that decision by very different routes and those routes are important, particularly if they are based on a strict structural ideology.

Contrast that view to the view of some other who believes that the constitution is a living, breating document whose interpretation needs to be based on today's society rather than the society that existed 200+ years ago.



edited to add:
I think Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society, it's the "farm" Bush is using for virtually all his nominees.

[delhurgo]

4. Roberts isn't a member of the Federalist Society.

Thats what was reported at first, but the last I read that was mistaken. He's not a member.

[Bucky]

5. No, but he sure got invited to deliver a lot of speeches to their mtgs

They musta liked something he was saying.

[housewolf]

17. It appears that you are correct

I thought I'd heard that he was a member of the Federalist Society, but upon doing some research of his biography, I don't find any reference to membership in that organization. I have to say, I am somewhat relieved to know that that he's not a Federalist Society member.

[question everything]

8. I have often wondered how they would interpret the 4th Amendment

against unreasonable search and seizure. Obviously in the late 18th Century, it referred to physical activities. Today we can do this via electronic means. Would they include electronic means in interpreting the 4th Amendment?

[delhurgo]

13. Thats one of the reasons why I find 'strict constructionism'

so unconvincing. How can you just rely on the text alone, when the text was written over 200 years ago? For example, the 1st Amend talks about freedom of the press, but the press back then was the printing press. Now we have tv, radio, the internet,.... Does it apply to those too? It should imo.

And when they wrote the Bill of Rights they were concerned that the government in the future would use it to suggest that those are the only rights we have. They always intended the BORs to be a guide with the most important rights enumerated, but not to suggest that those are the only rights. There are unenumerated rights as well. They even wrote the 9th Amend to say so specifically. Its also in the language of the Constitution as a whole, and the Declaration of Ind. Its up to the supreme Court to enforce that, and thats what 'strict constructionists' won't do. They want to leave everything up to majority rule.

[Vickers]

My response: "So you admit that Scalia and Thomas are complete

partisan tools?"

[delhurgo]

3. I would disagree with that.

Its not that they're partisan, its that their judicial philosophy is is so extreme. I think there is a little diff between the two though. I think Thomas is still developing and may surprise people in years to come; I think he may have some libertarian in him.

Scalia is too bullheaded to be partisan. He wouldn't care what his opinions meant for the republican party, problem is he doesn't care what they mean for the rights of ordinary citizens either.

[ClassWarrior]

9. Read "Blinded By The Right." Thomas is a partisan tool.

I suspect you're right about Whacko Tony.

NGU.

[Vickers]

12. Sorry, I was only trying to frame my obstinate response in the context

of the original quote. :P

:toast:

[delhurgo]

15. I didn't care what you meant.

I just needed someones post to rant. Thats what I always do. :D

[Vickers]

18. We should get along swimmingly.

:spank:

[delhurgo]

2. I think you make a good point.

I don't think there really is that much difference, maybe a little, but not much.

I don't think thats suppose to reassure democrats though. Thats just what seems most likely, and I would agree. He even clerked for Rehnquist and was thought to be the choice to replace him, until O'Connor went first.

The one difference though is that he's a conservative catholic, like Scalia. The church he belongs to is very conservative and so is the monsignor there. He actually followed that monsignor to that church. And that same church takes bus loads of memebrs to anti-abortion protests every year. I think thats why the religious right is so confidenct in this pick.

If he turned out to be more moderate, like Kennedy or O'Connor, I'd be comletely shocked. Im sure Bush would be too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Rehnquist Was Part Of A Majority That Upheld Miranda...

Unlike Scalia and Thomas who are "strict constructionists" Rehnquist is much more likely to bow to precedent...

In other words even if he believes a case was wrongly decided he is reluctant to upset settled law....

That's true small c conservatism...

[ClassWarrior]

7. Roberts is in the mold of Ken Starr...

And doesn't that conjure up an image?! I always figgered Ken was kinda moldy...

NGU.

[cosmicdot]

10. does that mean he's a segregationist like Rehnquist?

a racist?

:spank:


no, I know that's not what these pundits are implying


Rehnquist's
'lifetime achievements'



Marketing: 'Packaging can create a perception of difference in the mind of consumers'.







Roberts is a win-win for corporate america, right-wingers, and fundamentalists regardless of how the Corporate Media is paid to 'display' him.

[Pepperbelly]

11. Anyone! Does this guy belong to the Federalist Society or not?

I have heard conflicting tales about this. Does anyone know for sure?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. To The Best Of My Knowledge He Does Not

though he has given speeches to them...

[Pushed To The Left]

16. It should be somebody in the mold of O'Connor

Somebody like O'Connor would most likely get close to a unanimous vote, and would make most Americans happy. She supports Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy, and opposes eminent domain for the purpose of businesses! If Bush really wanted to be a uniter, this would have been the way to go.