Tag Archives: links

Recent Readings

Posted on by

Books I’ve read in the last two months, working back from the present:

Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun’s Supreme Court Journey by Linda Greenhouse (just begun this morning)

The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics by Don E. Fehrenbacher

Crossworld: One Man’s Journey into America’s Crossword Obsession by Marc Romano

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark Haddon

Atonement by Ian McEwan

Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution by Jack N. Rakove

I’ve been trying to switch between fiction and nonfiction, but I’ve obviously been more into the nonfiction lately.

Roberts and Gays

Posted on by

For at least a year before the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court, the White House was working behind the scenes to shore up support for him among its social conservative allies, quietly reassuring them that he was a good bet for their side in cases about abortion, same-sex marriage and public support for religion.

Yeah, so that kind of worries me.

Granted, the only other part of the article that mentions gay rights is this:

Mr. Leo said he told wary social conservatives that even though Judge Roberts had not ruled on abortion or other issues his other opinions showed “a respect for the text and original meaning and a presumption of deference to the political branches of government.” …

Mr. Leo said such narrow and deferential rulings are “going to comport better” with the restrained role that social conservatives want judges to play on questions about abortion, gay rights or religious displays, which they believed should be left to elected officials rather than the Supreme Court, Mr. Leo said.

Granted, there’s nothing specific there that says Roberts would vote for or against gay rights. But I won’t kid myself; as impressed as I am by him, he’s still a Bush nominee. So I’ll continue to hope what I’ve already been hoping for a while: that no same-sex marriage case comes before the Court in the near future. Regardless of the Court’s composition, one of two things would happen: either it would find bans on same-sex marriage constitutional, or it would find them unconstitutional and thereby practically guarantee passage of a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage. This is just not a good time for the Supreme Court to be ruling on gay marriage, period.

There are, of course, other gay rights issues that could come before the Court.

Anyway, we knew after last fall’s election results that things didn’t look good. At this point, we just have to keep our fingers crossed.

Dual Letters

Posted on by

Okay, this is weird.

In today’s Times:

To the Editor:

Re “Bush Picks Nominee for Court; Cites His ‘Fairness and Civility’ ” (front page, July 20):

I am a knee-jerk liberal, and I know that I will probably deplore many of the opinions that Judge John G. Roberts will write as a Supreme Court justice, if he is confirmed.

But I think that he is eminently qualified for the position and should be confirmed.

All Americans knew in the 2004 presidential election that Supreme Court nominations would play a big role in the near term. The public elected George W. Bush despite a clear understanding of his particular philosophy about constitutional interpretation and “legislating from the bench” – even if that negative characteristic applies equally to conservative and liberal judges.

The public will (and should have to) live with the choice that President Bush has made. Intellect and qualification should always be the prime concerns in selecting lifetime appointees to the high court.

In Judge Roberts, Mr. Bush appears to have gone above and beyond in those areas. That Judge Roberts may be crafted in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, judges whom President Bush says he admires, is our own fault.

Josh Goldberg
Chicago

In today’s Washington Post:

I am a liberal, and I know I will deplore a good number of the Supreme Court opinions John G. Roberts Jr. authors. But I think he is eminently qualified for the position and should be confirmed nonetheless.

Americans knew in the 2004 presidential election that Supreme Court nominations would play a big role in the near term. The public reelected George W. Bush despite a clear understanding of his particular philosophy about constitutional interpretation and “legislating from the bench” — even if that negative characteristic actually applies equally to conservative and liberal judges. The public will — and should have to — live with the choice that Mr. Bush has made.

Intellect and qualification should always be the prime concerns in selecting these lifetime appointees. In Judge Roberts, Mr. Bush appears to have gone above and beyond those standards. The fact that Roberts is crafted “in the mold of [Justices] Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas” is our own fault.

JOSH GOLDBERG

Chicago

From the New York Times’s letters policy:

“Letters to The Times should only be sent to The Times, and not to other publications.”

Oooh, they got burned!