So it's Roberts
Can I be the first to say it?
I could give a shit what he thinks about abortion. I mean it.
He thinks life begins at conception? Fine by me. He thinks abortions should be allowable retroactively until the kid starts college, or at least moves his shit out of the basement? That's fine too.
The point is, I don't care what his personal views are, so long as his jurisprudential philosophy is to intrepret the law as written, without regard to his personal ideology.
Will Roberts do that? Will he be a strict constructionalist? An originalist? A "pragmatist?"
Don't know. Have no idea. Like everyone else, I'm keeping my fingers crossed and waiting for the information to roll in.
Comments
The consensus seems to be that he is another Rehnquist, not a Scalia or Thomas.
Posted by: CRB | July 19, 2005 10:24 PM
The problem is that it is almost impossible to interpret the law "as written" without involving your personal philosophy, because if the law were written absolotely specifically and devoid of vagueness there would be little need for a Supreme Court to interpret them.
Posted by: Tracy Miller | July 20, 2005 01:16 PM