And They Were Expecting?

NY Times - Files Highlight Legal Stances of a Nominee

The NY Time breathlessly reports that Robert's papers shows he believes in strictly interpreting the constitution and not legislating from the bench.

"COLLEGE PARK, Md., July 26 - As a young lawyer in the Justice Department at the beginning of Ronald Reagan's presidency, John G. Roberts advocated judicial restraint on the issues of the day, many of which are still topical, documents released Tuesday by the National Archives show.

He defended, for instance, the constitutionality of proposed legislation to restrict the ability of federal courts to order busing to desegregate schools.

On other civil rights issues, he encouraged a cautious approach by courts and federal agencies in enforcing laws against discrimination.

Judge Roberts, now on the federal court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, also argued that Congress had the constitutional power "to divest the lower federal courts of jurisdiction over school prayer cases."

In another memorandum, he maintained that the Supreme Court, to which he is now nominated, overreached when it denied states the authority to impose residency requirements for welfare recipients.

This was an example, he wrote, of the court's tendency to find fundamental rights, like the right to travel between states, for which there was no explicit basis in the Constitution. "It's that very attitude which we are trying to resist," he wrote."


President Bush on picking judges: " I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench"

Ok, so the NY Times still doesn't understand? What's the problem?

UPDATE: WAPO joins the shock at the times! Clueless!

0 comments

Support our Vets!



Macsmind - Official Blog of The MacRanger Show on Blog Talk Radio