"Judges must be constantly aware that their role, while important, is limited," Judge Roberts wrote. "They do not have a commission to solve society's problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law."
That seems like total boilerplate -- nice enough boilerplate, but boilerplate nonetheless -- and makes me think there's not going to be anything of note in the article, but I'm going to read it for you anyway.
Okay. It's interesting, perhaps, that his net worth is $5.3 million and that he was first interviewed for the Supreme Court opening -- by Alberto Gonzales, a competitor for the seat -- three months before O'Connor announced her retirement. He continues to have no memory of any connection with the Federalist Society, including serving on that steering committee that listed him. Not much else.
There is a link to a National Archives page with 14,000 pages of documents written by Roberts. You'll have to read those for yourself. Let me know if you find anything.
Posts
8 comments:
The Roberts quote that you cite is boilerplate, as you say. But it's "strict constructionist" boiler plate, appealing to President Bush's conservative base, but innocuous enough so as not to rile up liberals terribly.
Mark: It's perfectly consistent with what every liberal Justice on the Court says. They all claim to be doing just what the requires. Especially when they are going through confirmation -- they are all humble servants of the law.
Johnny is my kind of fella' that's for sure. I hope his dancing son comes to visit Dad and does his thing again and puts a smile on Ruth's face. She seems awful prunish if you ask me.
It's interesting, perhaps, that his net worth is $5.3 million
To you and me, that's a mildly interesting piece of trivia at best. But you can bet Bush's opponents will try to make hay out of that during the impending confirmation fiasco!
It confuses me as to why financially successful citizens are somehow suspect in this country. It's almost as if through their efforts to succeed they have somehow given up their rights as citizens to hold public office, or somehow made their motives suspect.
It'll be particularly ironic when some of our millionaire Senators inevitably try to make an issue out of this.
I would have been much more surprised if his net worth had been significantly less. After all, the practice of law at the levels he practiced is most often quite lucrative.
It would speak ill of him, given the nature of his practice, if he hadn't saved a large pot of money and invested it well.
No, it's not just boiler plate. Try this draft article from the archive on judicial restraint.
Actually, I like him and I like his way of thinking. IMO he's a far-seeing rationalist rather than a strong social conservative.
Stranger:
You make precisely the point I was trying, perhaps incoherently, to make in the first comment here. With the wording of Roberts' response, one could easily conclude that precedent and established law could lead him to uphold Roe v. Wade. That too, would conform to "strict constructionist" views. In the end, we can't know how he would judge on issues surrounding Roe and that's probably as it should be.
It appears likely that Roberts, like the justice he's been nominated to replace, will look at matters solely on a case-by-case basis, although with possibly different motives from those of Justice O'Connor. O'Connor was often thought to have avoided painting with too broad a brush in her opinions in order to give the Court (and her) the opportunity to revisit specific issues in light of ensuing changes in public perceptions and common practice. It enhanced her power and that of the Court.
Roberts appears to want to avoid grand pronouncements that violate his seeming belief that the Court is to be an unobtrusive referee rendering judgments based on a more fixed understanding of the Constitution and the law.
Mark
Post a Comment