I COME WITH 'NO AGENDA,' ROBERTS TELLS HEARING
Chief justice nominee John Roberts on Monday promised to approach the law with "a certain humility" and told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he has "no agenda" on the bench.
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/12/rob...ings/index.html
I welcome John Roberts to what will eventually be a painful, muck-raking campaign into his personal life and politics - after all, he's a conservative, so the media will eat him alive. But in all seriousness:
"My job is to call balls and strikes, not pitch or bat."
1. That's all I needed to hear. A Supreme Court Justice's role, more or less, is to interpret an individual's case according to the U.S. Constitution. His job is not to "apply justice" (especially when it's just to "some guy's" point of view) or otherwise stray from the words set forth by our founding fathers or by amendment afterward. He or She is there to interpret the Constitution - a monkey lawyer could it (I mean literally: a monkey in a suit citing precedent could do it. He'd have a cute monkey rolodex. Maybe a cute monkey briefcase - I dunno).
2. There's no "two"...
... this time.
ROBERTS ARTFULLY DODGES HOT QUESTION
In a day punctuated by flashes of hostility and humor, Judge John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday acknowledged a constitutional right to privacy and said overturning precedent was a "jolt to the legal system."
Ref. https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...54414%2C00.html
Umpiring the Constitution
For decades, defenders of the status quo have railed against "activist judges." Before chief justice nominee John Roberts could get a word out at this week's confirmation hearings, senators were lecturing him about the need for judges to be umpires, not players.
Roberts quickly embraced the umpire comparison. But over the course of three days, he quietly but repeatedly made a second point: Judges have to field the cases that come before them
Ref. https://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050916/...theconstitution