[Former co-clerk Saikrishna Prakash recalls teasing,] John, break out the crystal ball and tell us what the framers thought. ... Yes, I consulted the framers. You're all wrong, and I'm right. |
I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that. |
I thought of John Roberts as a peace offering. President Bush could have nominated someone much more conservative. |
I'm not talking policy. I'm just talking about the law. |
If you believe those rules have been changed by the state Supreme Court in this instance, you have the legal right and indeed the constitutional duty at that point to intervene, |
It shows an interest in thinking deeply about the role of the courts in society and the proper interpretation of the Constitution based on its text and history. |
It's a document that reinforces tradition, ... incremental changes. |
That is the litmus test that distinguishes legal conservatives from liberals: What is the proper role of the courts in deciding contentious, divisive social issues? ... It would be very surprising to see someone who clerked for Rehnquist, who worked for Ronald Reagan , to change from that basic view. |
The Bush administration policy is against torture of any kind; it's prohibited by federal criminal law. |
The Bush administration policy is against torture of any kind; it's prohibited by federal criminal law. The debate is whether you can use interrogation methods that are short of torture. Some who have been critical of the Bush administration have confused torture with cruel, inhumane treatment. |
The national government has certain kinds of compelling interests that conflict with the right of the press to keep their sources confidential, like national defense and security. |
Whatever benefits would have been gained by interrogating him are now gone, |