Heustis: Three strikes against John Roberts
In Three strikes against John Roberts, Reed Heustis evaluates remarks of Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts regarding the right to life and how faithful he would be in applying the Constitution.
Here is an excerpt of a concise commentary:
Here is an excerpt of a concise commentary:
If Roberts will strictly interpret the Constitution, then why does he fail to interpret Article I, Section 1 strictly? The most strict interpretation of that section would exclude any rationalization that Supreme Court decisions are somehow “settled law.”
Here's a little secret for you. That tiny three-letter-word that you find in Article I, Section 1, "all," actually means exactly that: all! A strict interpretation would mean the same.
Moreover, Perkins' statement that Roberts "will not legislate from the bench" is totally unintelligible in light of the fact that Roberts implicitly believes that the bench may legitimately make law.
posted by Eaglet at 11:33 PM
2 Comments:
Not for nothing, but Reed must've eaten a few too many paint chips as a kid. Roberts comments re: Roe came when he was nominated to the appellate court, on which a judge is required to follow SCOTUS precedent. Roberts was correct: for an appellate judge, Roe is settled law, and lower court judges are obliged to treat it as such.
What required him to follow precedent over the Supreme Law of the Land, which says that Congress, not the Supreme Court, has "all legislative powers" in the federal government?
<< Home