On Friday, I spoke with a Harvard classmate of John Roberts, two friends/acquaintances of John Roberts, and several conservative leaders--one actively examining the background of the Supreme Court nominee--about the legal philosophy, character, and personality of George W. Bush's pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. The discussions were reassuring.

Those who know Roberts described him as "apolitical," of "high character," a "scholar of the law," and a first-rate legal mind. He would approach cases from a legal perspective detached from politics, in which he shows little public interest. One associate even tagged Roberts as an "originalist," meaning that the would-be Supreme Court justice would read the Constitution as it reads, rather than as succeeding generations of judges have read it. If the Senate confirms Roberts, two agreed, he would immediately become the scholar of the court. All agreed that Roberts would not be a Scalia or a Thomas. Two people who knew Roberts likened him to William Rehnquist, the justice he once clerked for. A conservative leader actively looking into Roberts' law articles, decisions, speeches, and other public declarations, placed the nominee's outlook somewhere between Kennedy/O'Connor and Rehnquist. By standing against forced busing, and offering a literal reading of Article 3, Section 1 granting Congress establishment and disestablishment power over lower courts, Roberts impressed this conservative leader. He described him as a "pragmatic" and "cautious conservative," avoiding controversy to further career ambition.

And the judge's ambition, all agreed, probably exceeds becoming a mere Supreme Court justice. Ultimately, he would like to replace his former boss as the chief justice. Those who knew Roberts described him as quiet, reserved, even shy. "If Roberts were in this room, you would not notice him." Blending into the background in social settings, Roberts stands out by way of intellect and kindness. His personality is apparently the furthest thing from overpowering. Roberts' Harvard classmate told me that he even shared a major with Roberts and doesn't recall ever meeting him or hearing his name at Harvard. Roberts' classmates certainly know his name now. Whether he likes it or not, the lifetime wallflower is now the belle of the ball--at least for the remainder of the summer.

so would placing the nominee between Rehnquist and O'Connor/Kennedy make him willing to rule against previous SC rulings, or would he maintain the status quo. in other words, would he follow the precedent of a fabricated right to "privacy"?

The gentleman who placed Roberts betwixt O'ConnorKennedy and Rehnquist said he wouldn't be shocked if he upheled Roe, particularly if the case came before they replaced Rehnquist. On the one hand, Roberts does read the Constitution as it reads. On the other, he's apparently a bit of a careerist and will do the prudent thing to achieve his ambition.

Consider:
Will John Roberts' Archbishop tell him how to vote on gays, choice or stem cell research (but not on a war of choice) upon threat of witholding communion?

Guido, would the scenario you describe be less desirable than the current situation, where Patricia Ireland, Eleanor Smeal, and other high priestesses tell justices how to vote?

Dan,
Yes...Consider the threat to a Catholic. We saw it happen in the last election, didn't we? What recourse would Roberts have? Would he have the courage of JFK?

In most cases the correct Constitutional course would be upsetting to both unreasonable Catholics and unreasonable feminists. In other words, the Constitution allows for states to decide on most questions, including sodomy laws and abortion (depending upon your reading of the 14th Amendment, on this latter issue). Utah's course might be greeted with enthusiasm by a Catholic, and Massachusetts' course might be greeted with antipathy--even though it's the second most Catholic state. In allowing for diversity and not uniformity of law (in most cases) the Constitution is bound to upset all single-minded folks at one point or another.

Fabricate right to privacy? Why is it fabricated? Does this mean records are not private, your home? Where does the clause about unreasonable search and sessure and the other bits that cover, "It not the governments business what I do in privacy!", end exactly? Just any old place you decide? What if instead of abortion, this was about male vasectomy or other methods to 'prevent' pregnancy from even happening in the first place. There **are** religious groups who have just as valid grounds to believe any birth control should be illegal, which is just as valid as the belief by anti-Roe vs. Wade people that life (or more specifically a soul) starts at conception. Get a clue PMA.

Kagehi, putting aside overly-religious kooks, most people recognize that there is a big difference between preventing pregnancy and ending pregnancy, the latter being a nice phrase for "killing."

Even if we were to grant that the Constitution ensures a "right to privacy," which it does not, I don't even understand how this could be construed as a privacy issue. You can't "privately" beat your children. Why should you be allowed to "privately" end their lives?

Off the top of my head, I would say that the clause about unreasonable search and seizure ends with unreasonable search and seizure. Breaking into peoples' homes, businesses, cars, etc without reason is unconstitutional. Equating that with the right to do away with an unborn child is the very definition of specious reasoning.

Kagehi,

jabbing a scalpel into the skull of an 8 month old fetus, making a circular incision, and sucking his or her brains out with a vacuum while he or she screams in agony has nothing to do with illegal search and seizure. you need to go back to school and take a first year philosophy course. your brain is broken.

So I guess the whole PMA moniker means you pull no punches, eh?

*OFF-TOPIC* i should really change my name to PMA because i am neither polemic nor a muhammad ali. i made this name when i first visited when i needed to argue with somebody on this site about Ward Churchill. i really liked the site, so i decided to stick around. stupid, i know, because out of all the users i probably resort to more ad hominem logical fallacies than anyone. i still think anyone that defends PBA is pretty crazy, although i'm not sure if Kagehi does or not. anyway, i'll try to post more intelligently from now on, if that's even possible for me to do. new name, PMA.

polemical muhammad ali, your name change reminds me of New Kids on the Block becoming NKOTB. polemical muhammad ali is dead. Long live polemical muhammad ali.

"agehi,

jabbing a scalpel into the skull of an 8 month old fetus, making a circular incision, and sucking his or her brains out with a vacuum while he or she screams in agony has nothing to do with illegal search and seizure. you need to go back to school and take a first year philosophy course. your brain is broken."

-Polemical Muhammed Ali

Sure it does. The child's brain is being illegally searched and seized.

i consider it an honor to join the ranks of one of the foremost boy bands of our age.

Apparently, Roberts is not a Federalist Society member as was originally reported by every news organization (don't these guys check facts?). This has me worried.

PMA, it should also be noted that the boxing, non-polemical Muhammad Ali also changed his name. (Any doubters should watch ESPN Classic, and see how Casius Clay defeated Sonny Liston for the heavyweight title. Shortly thereafter, the same man, now going by Muhammad Ali, defended that title against Sonny Liston.) Did your pugilist idol's name-change inspire you to undergo a similar transformation?