Rachel Maddow on MSNBC -- awesome point on Roberts

[Atman]

It isn't ROBERTS politics that are necessarily the problem, why he should be stopped. It is because of his judicial philosophy affirming that the judiciary and especially the Congress should be substantially weakened, and the executive branch be given considerably broader powers.

Bush is the prime example of why this is a horrible dangerous position...give this assclown MORE power? That alone should disqualify Roberts.

[SpiralHawk]

1. The Imperial pResidency

Do we want an emperor? Hell, no.

[sellitman]

2. I miss Rachel on AAR.

To replace her with that sniveling whiny Springer fool was a cruel trick.

[Rosco T.]

3. Rachel is on every morning... and podcasts too :)

[valerief]

4. Yeah, make * an official dictator! Not.

[silverweb]

5. I remember the Nixon days.

One of the major criticisms of Nixon, even before Watergate broke, was that he seemed to think of himself as a monarch instead of an elected employee of the citizenry. The way I remember it, resentment of that attitude was one of the factors that helped get Carter elected.

Hopefully, georgie's imperial delusions of grandeur and empire will help Democrats in '06 and '08.

[pnorman]

6. That's of MAJOR significance,

and would explain why the Bush cabal would pick him. Expect them to back him with all the bribery & arm-twisting they can muster. And this is one appointment the Democrats had BETTER oppose with all their might. FEMA in particular, has shown the criminal folly of spinelessly rolling over.

But can anyone here point me to whatever Roberts has said or done that establishes that with reasonable certainty?

pnorman

[pnorman]

7. Response (from myself).

so far, Google yielded the following:

>
>
Before shutting down the blog for the night, I thought I'd give my sense of the answer to the question of what I think John Roberts will be like as a Supreme Court Justice. The answer is that he will be like William Rehnquist, his former boss.

Judge Roberts, like the Chief, is an institutionalist - he has worked for essentially his entire professional career before the Supreme Court.

I also have the sense that they have a similar ideology. For example, I get the sense that he (like the Chief) simultaneously believes in strong Executive Powers (see the D.C. Circuit's recent Hamdan decision, which he joined) but also limited federal powers (see his dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in the Rancho Viejo case).

One difference may be that Judge Roberts's opinions show him to be more of a judicial craftsman than the Chief, who tends to write as concisely and directy as possible. But in analyzing cases, the two are similar, as Judge Roberts explained in his hearings that it may be appropriate to rely on different sources of meaning -- e.g., text and history -- depending on the precise context.
>
>
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/7/19/225434/487

pnorman

[Wordie]

8. Even Arlen Spector had questions about the balance of powers philosophy of

Roberts (in Meet the Press interview yesterday). (Arlen Spector is the Republican chairman - freepers are really worried about him because he isn't a mindless dittohead supporter of Bush) Russert asked him a great question, imho.
<snip>
RUSSERT:
Senator, are you suggesting that originalists or strict constructionalists are actually being activist judges by ignoring the will of Congress?

SEN. SPECTER:  Yes.

MR. RUSSERT:  In what way?  In what cases?

SEN. SPECTER:  You'd like a little aberration, Tim?  Well, let me back up to a point you started with earlier, where--the report is that I intend to ask probing questions, and that is true.  I believe Republicans as well as Democrats have an obligation to find out about Judge Roberts' jurisprudence, and there ought not to be a political tilt. This is not an issue for Democrats or Republicans.  These hearings in substantive fact, as well as perception, ought to be for all Americans. Now, on to your central point.  The Supreme Court of the United States declared part of the legislation unconstitutional to protect women against violence because they said, "they disagreed with Congress' method of reasoning.  Well, I've been in the Senate for 25 years.  I was a DA before that.  We have a lot of very detailed factual hearings, and there's a real point of concern on my part when they say their method of reasoning is superior to ours.

And Arlen Specter is not the only guy to take them on.  Justice Scalia did in dissent.  He said that the Supreme Court has put in a "flabby test," and is acting as the taskmaster of Congress to see if Congress has done its homework. And Justice Scalia says it's ill-advised. And we have a very careful separation of power, and I'm fully behind a court having the last word.  But I think that we've gone outside of the balance of power when they take a very extensive record, which we have created, and say it's insufficient because of our method of reasoning. And I intend to ask Judge Roberts what he thinks about all that.
<unsnip>

Edited to add this link to the transcript of the show: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9240461/
(also includes the transcript of Russert's interview of Mayor Nagin)