[As pointed out by Cass Sunstein, the University of Chicago law professor who wrote the 2001 book republic.com,] Extremists and hate-filled sites tend to attract likeminded people who, if isolated, could come to their senses. ... tend to become more extremist. |
[At the same time, there is a growing pile of tidbits, in Roberts' opinions and in the Reagan-era documents dribbling out of the White House, that indicates he has strongly held and far-right views on major fronts—abortion, religion, and executive power. There's ammunition for principled opposition to be mined here. But the key attribute Roberts lacks from the point of view of the legal liberals, at least on the record, is an overarching, burn-the-house-down judicial philosophy. As a result, proponents of judicial restraint—an approach to the law that's become as fashionable among liberals as conservatives—are eager to embrace him as one of their own. Leftish advocates of restraint celebrate justices who don't reach out beyond the facts of a case to decide more than they need to and who respect existing Supreme Court precedent. They wrinkle their noses at justices who overtly seek to impose a rightward agenda (Antonin Scalia) and are willing to jettison past decisions to do it (Clarence Thomas). Roberts has never declared himself one of the bad guys, Sunstein pointed out hopefully in a recent piece in the New Republic . Instead he has styled himself as deliberate, lawyerly, process-oriented. His opinions on the D.C. Circuit court of appeals] avoid broad pronouncements, ... They do not try to reorient the law. |
[Roberts' dissent is a] pretty big deal, ... The fact that he was willing to challenge the Endangered Species Act as a brand-new judge, when lots of his Republican colleagues went the other way, indicates that he really wanted to make a statement. |
a simple brain freeze, the sort that all human beings are subject to. On the other hand, it is at least mildly embarrassing to make a mistake of that magnitude. |
As a matter of history, the Fourteenth Amendment was not understood to ban segregation on the basis of race. |
But movement Republicans want to see the court shift in the direction represented by Scalia and Thomas. If I had to guess, the next appointment would not be an extremist. But I would never have guessed Janice Brown. |
Catholicism is a wide tent in terms of political and legal positions. We could have nine Catholics on the Supreme Court and a great deal of diversity toward the law. |
Even though he's been in public life a long time, he's got a pretty sparse record. So I wouldn't be sure in any area. I've got hunches, that's all. |
He is unquestionably one of the most important figures in the history of American law. |
He's one of the most interesting senators of our time. The fact that the right was so concerned about him as head of the Judiciary Committee made many people think he'd be very careful in scrutinizing Bush's appointees. But I guess he has proved unpredictable once again. |
I don't think any new member of the court will expect the court to follow his or her lead. We have nine separate law offices headed by strong-willed people. |
I think the White House is torn internally, |
If you can kill them, why can't you spy on them? |
In a very few cases the majority has referred to foreign decisions in the same way it might refer to a treatise or an academic article. Our sovereignty is not at risk. |
It makes people think the stakes (in a confirmation) are much lower than they are, |