One of the first things I thought about when Roberts was announced as the nominee ... no record ... oh no, a roll of the dice ... could we be Souter'd again?
The cold chill grew as I read Coulter's column today.
...snip...
But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.
... snip ...
Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees” and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won’t. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette.
Like many judicial conservatives, I was hoping for a Scalia ... most pundits are saying we got a Rehnquist ... my concern is he will turn out to be a Souter.
I ain't opening up comments on this one.
P.S. I draw comfort from the following Robert's quotes in response to Shumer's question about judicial philosophy.
My own judicial philosophy begins with an appreciation of the limited role of a judge in our system of divided powers. Judges are not to legislate and are not to execute the laws. . . . My judicial philosophy accordingly insists upon some rigor in ensuring that judges properly confine themselves to the adjudication of the case before them, and seek neither to legislate broadly nor to administer the law generally in deciding that case.
...snip ...
That means the judges should not look to their own personal views or preferences in deciding the cases before them. Their commission is no license to impose those preferences from the bench.
..snip ...
P.S.S. Just a short rabbit trail in logic. Isn't it one's own personal view to not look to one's own personal view in deciding cases?
In other words, the personal view that I would want Robert's to impose from the bench is that judges should "properly confine themselves to the adjudication of the case before them, and seek neither to legislate broadly nor to administer the law generally in deciding that case."
Just a nit pick.