Quick update on Roberts nomination posting
A couple of people have made the same valid comment to me, so I thought I would add this brief follow-up to my article on John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court. I suggest that we need a judge who is not so beholden to precedent that he would uphold bad law just because it's "settled". I said that refusing to reconsider a bad decision is almost as bad as making the bad decision in the first place. To quote the comment from Bizblogger directly: "On point 3 - he said that Roe v. Wade was the "law of the land" because as an appeals judge, he is forced to recognize Supreme Court decisions for his decisions. As a Supreme Court justice, his role is far different and he obviously knows that. He's an originalist, so he will be "conservative," according to most people's definitions." In other words, he might consider his job as a Supreme Court justice much more open to reexamining prior Supreme Court decisions whereas his job on the Appeals Court was clearly to abide by those decisions, even if he disagreed with them. I hope that's true, and I think there's a good chance it is true. In fact, I don't think Bush would have nominated him if Bush didn't think it were true.
|Print article||This entry was posted by Rossputin on 07/21/05 at 10:10:37 am . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.|