Roberts Seeks Greater Consensus on Court

[proud2BlibKansan]

WASHINGTON - Chief Justice John Roberts said Sunday he is seeking greater consensus on the Supreme Court, arguing that more consensus among justices is likely if hot-button issues are decided on the "narrowest possible grounds."
ADVERTISEMENT

In a 15-minute address to Georgetown University law graduates, the 51-year-old chief justice — youngest in 200 years — sketched a vision for leading a court bitterly divided on issues such as abortion, the death penalty and gay rights.

He said the nation benefits if unelected justices can avoid making 5-4 decisions that have sweeping impact, noting that many of the court's most controversial decisions — from presidential wartime powers to political boundaries in Texas — will be decided in the final six weeks of the current term.

"If it is not necessary to decide more to a case, then in my view it is necessary not to decide more to a case," Roberts said. "Division should not be artificially suppressed, but the rule of law benefits from a broader agreement. The broader the agreement among the justices, the more likely it is a decision on the narrowest possible grounds."

more . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060521/ap_on_go_su_co/chief_justice

[Thickasabrick]

1. He lost me....can someone translate?

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Sounds like he wants to control the court

[unblock]

3. well, if you can take him at his word,

he's saying that he wants to try to avoid 5-4 decisions by deciding cases based on a small number of specific legal interpretations, which more justices can agree on, rather than making additional pronouncements and pushing more justices into the "dissent" side.

rehnquist was more pushy in trying to make as much right-wing progress as possible, and if it meant only 5 votes in favor, that was fine with him. roberts is saying he'd rather be less controversial in order to get more than 5 justices agreeing.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Sounds to me that he wants to get rid of PRECEDENT...

... so that when judges like him come along who don't like it, they're free to go against it....

Funny, I don't recall republican judges screaming about republicans instituting sentencing guidelines, and other things limiting the judiciary's autonomy...

Ooooohhhhh I get it... It's only when a judge wants to rule against Democratic ideals that they start to scream about constraints...

[necso]

4. Aw, that old

neocon favorite, the thin-tip-of-the-wedge. It must be old homeys week, or something.

Besides, fascism, theocracy and puritanism go down so much easier in small bites.

And it looks so much better when the Block of Four Blockheads can fool more than one Justice into helping the blockheads speed us into fascism, theocracy and puritanism.

(This is a strategy aimed in no small part at one particular Justice, IMO.)

[no_hypocrisy]

6. He's sounding a lot like *: Compromise means doing it my way. n/t

[BlueIris]

7. Good luck with that, Chief Justice Dipshit.

Somehow, I don't think you're going to keep Alito (or anyone except Scalia and Thomas) under "your" thumb. Believe it or not, those folks are actual jurists. You're Bush's whore. Enjoy infamy, fuckwad.

[me b zola]

8. creepy

Just plain creepy. Okay, creepy & evil.

Doesn't this undermine the essence of the SC? Roberts wins a vote with 3 dissenters, then tells dissenters that they should switch their votes/not dissent to give appearence that the vote was unanimous. Don't law students and accademics study cases based not only on who won, but on the dissent as well?


:wtf:


Sounds like more fascism to me.

[BlueIris]

9. Kick. Stay informed, kiddies. It's about to get really interesting. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Yes it is

[BlueIris]

12. My guess? It's Alito who flips sides.

I think he's going to defy the neo-conservatives' expectations in the coming months in a big way. That'll be exciting. But don't anyone look for Roberts to do anything decent--ain't going to happen.

[Lars39]

10. Consolidating power, as quickly as they can.