« Prime Minister Singh does Congress | Main | So it's Roberts »

Supreme Court blogging

To answer everyone's questions, yes, I'm interested, but I just don't have much to say at this point. I'm waiting, just like everyone else. And in the meantime, I have no inclination to get bogged down in esoteric debates about, say, the relative merits of "orginalism" versus "textualism." I'm not saying such academic debates are uninteresting, or even unimportant. But either a textualist or an originalist would be infinitely preferable to the kind of unrestrained judicial temperaments that have morphed our highest court into a supra-legislature of late.

I guess we'll know something definite later tonight, after which I'll try reading the tea leaves like everyone else. If history is any indication, however, there's no accurate way to evaluate a justice until he has actually sat on the court for at least a year.

Meanwhile, I don't think either side is eager for a bruising confirmation battle. I predict Bush will take a cue from his base and avoid Gonzales, but I also think he's going to try to stay as true to his principles as possible while simultaneously striving to set up a relatively easy confirmation -- no small feat.

On the subject of Gonzales, am I the only one who was amused by the way some liberals, after having recast Gonzales as Torquemada reincarnated during his AG confirmation, practically started praying for a Gonzales nomination to the high court once the trial balloon had been floated? Heh, that was funny.


Judge John C. Roberts is the latest.

That's the man. Opposed to Roe vs. Wade.

To be completely accurate, he represented the Reagan administration who was opposed to Roe v Wade.

Yes, that's right. Although the fact that he did argue against Roe vs. Wade will sit well with pro-lifers in Bush's base.

Post a comment