The way I read the Roberts memo, he most emphatically did NOT urge the government to "support the constitutionality of proposed statutes [...]." Rather, he acknowledged that his reading indicated that such statutes could not be opposed on constitutional grounds -- which seems apparent from a reading of Article III Section 2 -- but should be opposed on policy grounds. On the basis of this memo, at least, you have absolutely no reason to accuse Roberts of being any less a defender of the judiciary than was Rehnquist.

Principled opposition to Roberts' nomination (I'm a Democrat) would not stoop to twisting his words.
Ralph Hitchens | 09.06.05 - 3:36 pm | #

Thanks for mentioning this. I've addressed it in a new post.
Fred Vincy | Homepage | 09.06.05 - 5:55 pm | #