GOD & MAN IN THE 21ST CENTURY
I'm not sure you want to pray for that Hunter, he's sounding decidedly like a nightmare choice for social conservatives. He's affirmed support for a right to privacy and Roe vs Wade as established precedent. He's also denied the concept of a strict reading of the constitution.All in all it's sounding a bit like Souter all over again(assuming of course he's being honest in his statements).
That's quite an assumption, T. I'm beginning to suspect he may be full of bull honkey. I am backing off of my "well, he's the best we could have hoped for under the circumstances" assessment.
I'm not saying it's for sure, I'm just saying it looks like he's shaping up that way.for example read this.I am very pleased so far with how Roberts is working out (although again i'd prefer he was in an associate justice role).
As I see it he has no reason to be full of it in his answers. I mean it's not like the democrats can do much of anything to prevent his nomination.
If anything, J.R. shot down several overinflated gasbags. The lecture he delivered to these unmoored egos in re: Kelo v. New London has to be one of the choicest C-SPAN moments ever.
I'm more curious about the Galloway/Hitchens match up today if we are going to talk about sport debating.Frankly I suspect Galloway will walk away with a significant lead, hitchens has been pretty weak recently in arguments (no wonder since he's still trying to defend the Iraq invasion and its justification of the week)
(Doh sorry Jay, I'm not sure why I thought hunter wrote the original post)
Henri Levy has a great bit on Christopher Hitchens in this month's The Atlantic. Apparently Hitchens has taken to following Kissinger around and calling him a "toad" at the top of his lungs.Say what you will about his Iraq war myopia, I still like the guy.
I'm afraid to write yet about Roberts' affirmation of the right to privacy. But after his confirmation is effected, I hope to address that here and in other venues.
The right to privacy question was the stupidest question the Dems could have asked. Even Scalia and Thomas believe the right to privacy is inherent in the Constitution. The right to privacy can be upheld without upholding a right to choice. Basically, the question as asked gives anti-choice jurists a pass.Or, to further the baseball analogy, it was a ball.I'm much more worried about his inability to recuse himself in the face of an obvious conflict of interest. The scope of his former litigation practice potentially makes him the Justice with the greatest likelihood to have a real or perceived conflict of interest in cases before the Court.
It's been common for justices to come from the ranks of lawyers with cases before the court. Brandeis and Frankfurter come immediately to mind. McConnell, if nominated, would fall in that mold, too.
Warren, too.How many of them failed to recuse themselves from a case involving a party with whom they were interviewing for a job and then ruled in that party's favor? 'Cuz that's what Roberts did.
Post a Comment