You agree on Kelo, but let’s look at Kelo.

Winners: Large pharmaceutical company and the town of New London.

Losers: Ordinary homeowners.

I don’t see how to argue this as looking out for the little guy.

***

The Left routinely tramples on the right to free speech (trampling little guys) and it gives suspected criminals more rights than their victims (trampling little guys). And the Constitution does not provide for freedom “from” religion. If it did, I would demand for freedom from the pseudo-religion of the Left, which impinges itself daily, everywhere (trampling little guys who don’t share Leftist beliefs).

But I’m sure you mean well.

Not so. Liberals look out for “the common good,” which is something quite different and often goes against the little guy.

Go back and review the voting on Kelo, pal.

you said “perspicacious”

It is too bad that you conservatives did not think that it was important to allow President Clinton to give his undivided attention to anything except getting impeached. But then again, democrats don’t count as actual presidents in your book.

As to Roberts, God forbidf that we have a judge who sides with the little guy once in a while. As a liberal, I am heartened that he says he doesn’t have a “judicial philosophy” (read: bias) etched in stone like Scalia and Thomas.

(the Democrats did that with Strom Thurmond in the 1960s, which is why he changed his party afffiliation)

Not true.

The announcement came on September 16, 1964. You can find a summary of it in Strom Thurmond & the Politics of Southern Change by Nadine Cohodas. A couple of paragraphs further on:

Once the announcement had been made, [Harry] Dent could see that Thurmond was almost immediately more comfortable. Gone was the tension of being the odd man out. His new Republican colleagues made him feel welcome. Having no committee chairmanship to lose, he’d had less at stake in switching parties than several of his more senior southern colleagues. (Russell had conceded as much in a letter to one constituent who had written to ask why he didn’t switch parties, too.) Although no deal had been cut with Thurmond in advance, Republicans gave him the same rank on their side of the committees he worked on as he had had as a Democrat.

Not long after the announcement, Dent went down to South Carolina to run the “Thurmond Speaks for Goldwater” operation…

To my knowledge no senator has ever been denied a committee chairmanship/ranking member position to which he/she was entitled by seniority and the prevailing Senate/Caucus Rules.

I’m sure that a Supreme Court wonk can find ways in which John Roberts fails to measure up to his standards of perfection; I’m equally sure that that’s true of every other justice or potential nominee. He looks pretty good to me. There’s always a concern about a David Souter (the movement seems nearly always to be to the left; the only exception that occurs to me is Byron White), but I think that there’s about as little as can be with Roberts.

He also seems to be quite personally charming, which should help.

That big dummy Bush has trumped those brilliant Democrats again. How does this moron keep beating these incredibly wise people. The faces on the democratic Senators, Tribe, Nies, and all the rest told the story.

Leahy and Shumer were especially depressed. They know that Nies, Aron, and Move On crowd will push for the filibuster. They know if they pull that trigger the gang of 14 will split and the filibuster will be lost. So they either give in to Bush or they get ripped by their base for cowardice. If they try the filibuster it will be a noble Pickett’s Charge like attempt but it will have similar results.

There will be a lot of noise and stomping but Roberts will be the next member of the SCOTUS. Bet the house on it. Politics is the combination of principles and practicallity. President Bush is just better at it then the Democrats.

Kevin Peters

President Bush and most of the country are at war with out attackers.

A large number of Democrats are at war with the US.

Different war.

And count me among those who thinks nominating Roberts was one shrewd political move. Judge Roberts is well regarded and well liked across the political spectrum. The Dems will make absolute fools of themselves (again) if they attempt a “Bork” in committee and, I believe, moderate Dems (especially those up for re-election) will not countenance a fillibuster. Schumer and Leahy had good reason to look grim at their presser. And, of course, the timing of the announcement is exquisite. Take that you Plame throwers.

Naturally some conservatives will be unhappy with the choice. I do believe that there are conservatives who do not oppose judicial activism as long as the courts activate their way, but I am not one of them. The first thing I would ask of any judge is to remember the judiciary’s place in the scheme of things and to act accordingly. By and large, however, conservatives are doing a happy dance.

…(or more precisely someone who is bored silly by people who identify with 18th Century ideologies and prefers to think for himself)…

I’m trying to decide if I should take umbrage at this remark. Does it suggest that those of us who do identify very much with certain “18th Century ideologies” are incapable of thinking for ourselves (not to mention boring)? Perhaps when we look at the Constitution we see a profoundly singular and exceptional document unique in the history of governance. Perhaps we think the 18th Century was one of those extraordinary moments in history when time, place, events and, most notably, men converged to change the direction of humankind. (Some of us might go so far as to say, with the exception of the birth, life, death and resurrection–if you’re so inclined–of Jesus Christ, the formation of the United States was perhaps the most significant event in human history.) Perhaps we believe that the greatest strength of Constitutional government is that it protects against the tyranny of “fashion”.

I applaud the nomination of John Roberts. Only time will tell if Roberts is the man we “contructionists”, we “originalists”, want him to be, but all indications are good. I certainly hope so because the relatively young Justice Roberts will be on the bench for a long, long time.