Actually.... he looks like he's not *that* bad. I mean, we knew he'd nominate a conservative. Roberts is reasonable, sane, and apparently a rock-solid *moderate,* which means he will not be one of the crazed conservative judges who votes for anything the President tells him to. In fact, the last person with these credentials (quiet moderate with minimal judgeship experience) was O'Connor herself, and she has long been reviled by Republicans for "swinging left" after she was appointed.
Roberts is also a literalist about the Constitution, which means that he's very hands-off - if the Constitution didn't forbid it explicitly, it's OK. He'd vote with the liberals about forbidding government intrusions such as the sodomy laws (well, that's settled, but for example), in other words. He'd probably even support leaving gay marriage up to the states and strike down any federal legislation against it, because that's in the Constitution as a states'-rights matter.
I'm not thrilled either. But I thought it'd be Torture Chief Gonzales or Shrieking Lunatic Clement. All things considered, it really could be worse, particularly IF Roberts maintains his commitment to impartial rulings.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 12:49 am (UTC)Roberts is also a literalist about the Constitution, which means that he's very hands-off - if the Constitution didn't forbid it explicitly, it's OK. He'd vote with the liberals about forbidding government intrusions such as the sodomy laws (well, that's settled, but for example), in other words. He'd probably even support leaving gay marriage up to the states and strike down any federal legislation against it, because that's in the Constitution as a states'-rights matter.
I'm not thrilled either. But I thought it'd be Torture Chief Gonzales or Shrieking Lunatic Clement. All things considered, it really could be worse, particularly IF Roberts maintains his commitment to impartial rulings.