You sure do know how to ruin my day.
Nah. Roberts is no Souter.
I am sure he is no Souter. But is he a Kennedy, an O'Connor, a Powell, or a Warren?
The greatest indicator of any justice's jurisprudential inclinations are his/her feelings toward the commerce clause. If, like thomas, they view the last 50 years as an utter abuse of the Commerce Clause, then we will be just fine...regardless of their personal views on abortion, gay marriage, etc...because as Scalia says, they are hamstrung by their judicial philosophy. If Kennedy and Schumer are any indication we will be just fine with Roberts:
"According to Schumer, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass, and the liberal Alliance for Justice, Roberts’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause is so restrictive that it would cripple federal powers.
“To me, the number one issue is the Commerce Clause,” Schumer said.
The underpinning of the expansive federal government is this phrase in the Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power... To regulate Commerce… among the several States...."
The Commerce Clause is the basis for the Endangered Species Act and other laws that affect businesses and individuals every day from Anchorage to Atlanta.
It may turn out that the most important thing Roberts has written in his 25 years of lawyering and judging is a dissent — amounting to barely more than one page — in a case called Rancho Viejo LLC v. Norton, issued on July 22, 2003.
In it, Roberts questioned whether the Endangered Species Act of 1973 gives federal regulators the power to stop a housing development that might affect the survival of a species, the arroyo toad, which lives within the boundaries of one state, California.
----------
That is wonderful for all originalists.
Sincerely,
Tomahawk, Juris Doctor 2000
Commenting by HaloScan
