Supreme Court Justice Roberts


Ok, I know every freakin blog out there has posted about John Roberts being nominated for The Supreme Court, so I started thinking….Hey! What about me?

Seriously tho, it sure looks like a good pick and one that shows our Presidents true character. He didn’t go for the shoo-in, he didn’t listen to the idiots saying we needed a female to replace a female, he did what he said he was going to do. He nominated someone who will interpret the Constitution faithfully and is a conservative. Why are people always surprised when this President does what he say’s he is going to do? Is it because we are so used to politicians backing down and not following through?

Judging by the far left reaction so far to Roberts nomination, Bush made a great pick.

Hugh Hewitt put it simply:

Judge John Roberts may be the smartest lawyer I have known, and he combines that intellect with a graciousness and good humor that will make it hard for any except the most extreme ideolouges to oppose him. Here’s his bio, but it cannot fully convey the great intellectual force which Justice Roberts will bring to the SCOTUS.

If anything shows the character of this man, it’s his response to Sen Schumer about his judicial philosophy:

My own judicial philosophy begins with an appreciation of the limited role of a judge in our system of divided powers. Judges are not to legislate and are not to execute the laws. . . . My judicial philosophy accordingly insists upon some rigor in ensuring that judges properly confine themselves to the adjudication of the case before them, and seek neither to legislate broadly not to administer the law generally in deciding that case.

Deciding the case . . . . requires an essential humility grounded in the properly limited role of an undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic, a humility reflected in doctrines of deference to legislative policy judgments and embodied in the often misunderstood term ?judicial restraint.? That restraint does not mean that judges should not act against the popular will. . . .[T]he framers expected them to be discerning the law, not shaping policy. That means the judges should not look to their own personal views or preferences in deciding the cases before them. Their commission is no license to impose those preferences from the bench.

Stuart from The Buck Stops Here posts a bit about Justice Scalia comments about Roberts:

For what it’s worth: A few years ago, Justice Scalia said to a friend of mine that he and other Justices thought of John Roberts as far and away the best Supreme Court litigator in the country. I asked the friend why Justice Scalia said that, and (paraphrasing from my memory) the answer was something like this: “No matter how intense the questioning, Roberts is never flustered, and is always able to calmly answer any question whatsoever, while skillfully weaving in the substantive points that he wanted to make in the first place.”

Good job Bush! He kept his promise once again.

Check out Michelle Malkin, Captain Quarters, The Supreme Court Nomination Blog, Ace Of Spades, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Getting Nothing But Static From MSM, Deep Down In Texas, Wizbang, Pro & Cons, Red Satellites, Broken Masterpieces, & Moonbat Central for more.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments