SCOTUS pick: John Roberts

[RandFan]

Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in the latter of these cases:The other justices paid little attention to Justice Thomas's position, addressing his incorporation views briefly or in footnotes.

I asked for a source and I get quotes and some commentary. What can I say, thank you.

I have not paid attention to past criticisms of Thomas assuming they were just partisan. And while this does not itself prove the other criticism it does make me wonder if there isn't something to those other points. I'm not an expert but I don't get where he is coming from at all. One can be wrong but still have some logic to ones position.

It would prohibit precisely what the Establishment Clause was intended to protect--state establishments of religion.

The Establishment Clause was intended to protect--state establishments of religion? I'm really confused. What is his theory? Is there something I'm missing? What would be the effective difference of being oppressed from state established religion and federal established religion? This seems to fly in the face of the very purpose of the Establishment cause in the first place.

The other justices paid little attention to Justice Thomas's position, addressing his incorporation views briefly or in footnotes.

I'm guessing Tomas will wind up a footnote himself.

 

[crimresearch]

"The Establishment Clause was intended to protect--state establishments of religion?"

Intended? No evidence of that. More likely that it was intended to prevent a national religion from being established, or any religion from being the focus of legislation at the federal level
(later expanded to the state level by amendment).


Particularly nasty bit of revisionist Constiutional spin though.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by 'mean' tho..

 

[pgwenthold]

Let me add a caveat. Justice Clarence Thomas has specifically taken the position that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the Establishment Clause.

Let me just note, that when I mentioned "weaseling out of the directive 'congress shall pass no law...'" I was specifically thinking of Thomas, and, in particular, his response to the Newdow case.

In particular, since the Newdow case specifically targeted an act of Congress, claims about what the 14th amendment means are meaningless. It was not a state that passed a law that added "under God" to the pledge. It was the US Congress.

 

[zakur]

Roberts file vanishes

A file folder containing papers from Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s work on affirmative action more than 20 years ago disappeared from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library after its review by two lawyers from the White House and the Justice Department in July, according to officials at the library and the National Archives and Records Administration.

Archivists said the lawyers returned the file but it now cannot be located. No duplicates of the folder's contents were made before the lawyers' review. Although one of the lawyers has assisted in the Archives' attempt to reconstruct its contents from other files, officials have no way of independently verifying their effort was successful.

It is rare for the Archives to lose documents in its care and the agency has requested an investigation by its inspector general, said Sharon Fawcett, the assistant archivist for presidential libraries.

 

[WildCat]

Roberts file vanishes [/B]

Where was Sandy Berger?