More problems with the current nominee:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081500539.html
Quote:
|
The Supreme Court's conclusion that "the Constitution prohibits such a moment of silent reflection -- or even silent 'prayer' _ seems indefensible," Roberts wrote in a memo to White House counsel Fred Fielding.
|
And here is John Roberts, the alleged judicial process wonk, ignoring the process:
Quote:
Earlier, in a June 4, 1985 memo, Roberts argued that White House officials could exploit the Supreme Court's decision prohibiting school prayer. While justices struck down an Alabama statute mandating a one-minute moment of silence, "careful analysis shows" it was on technical grounds, he said.
Roberts said that a majority of justices would allow a similar law if it were worded more carefully to avoid expressing a religious purpose behind the measure.
The Alabama law was struck down because of the "peculiarities of the particular legislative history, not because of any inherent constitutional flaw in moment of silence statutes," Roberts wrote in a memo to Fielding regarding the Supreme Court decision in Wallace vs. Jaffree.
|
And finally:
Quote:
"If the justices truly think they are overworked, the cure lies close at hand," he wrote at a time when Chief Justice Warren Burger was calling for creation of a new tier of appeals court.
He suggested the members of the Supreme Court abdicate the "role of fourth or fifth guesser in death penalty cases" to lighten their workload.
|
In other words, Texas would still be allowed to execute underage minors and retarded people.
This op-ed from the Post's William Raspberry sums it up nicely:
Quote:
In a word, no. I've just looked at something I wrote on the subject more than a dozen years ago, and I'm not sure I'd change a word of it now:
"Certainly it is within the prerogatives of presidents to name to the federal judiciary men and women whose views are more or less consistent with their own. But it is also within the bounds of good government to keep the courts -- and the Supreme Court in particular -- generally reflective of the populace. It's just another way of legitimizing the judiciary.
"Presidents used to understand that (although their idea of what was 'reflective' of America was more likely to embrace ideology than race or gender). Not only did the fairly conservative Eisenhower appoint Earl Warren; the conservative Nixon appointed [Harry] Blackmun, who authored the Roe v. Wade opinion, and the liberal Kennedy appointed [Byron] White, who dissented from it. It was once a matter of good sense -- FDR's court-stacking attempt notwithstanding -- to keep the court within some sort of rough political balance.
"Only in fairly recent times has the Supreme Court come to be viewed as part of an ideological spoils system."
|