<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Right Wing Watch</title>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/hate-say-i-told-you-so"/>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/node/1458/atom/feed"/>
  <id>http://www.rightwingwatch.org/node/1458/atom/feed</id>
  <updated>2008-08-07T15:58:40-05:00</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>Hate to Say I Told You So</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/hate-say-i-told-you-so" />
    <id>http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/hate-say-i-told-you-so</id>
    <published>2007-06-29T11:19:14-05:00</published>
    <updated>2008-08-07T15:58:40-05:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Kyle</name>
    </author>
    <category term="John Roberts" />
    <category term="Judiciary" />
    <category term="Samuel Alito" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p><em>Washington   Post</em> editorial, September 18, 2005: <A title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/17/AR2005091701133.html" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/17/AR2005091701133.html">Confirm   John Roberts</a></p>
<blockquote><p>Judge   Roberts represents the best nominee liberals can reasonably expect from a   conservative president who promised to appoint judges who shared his philosophy.   Before his nomination, we suggested several criteria that Mr. Bush should adopt   to garner broad bipartisan support: professional qualifications of the highest   caliber, a modest conception of the judicial function, a strong belief in the   stability of precedent, adherence to judicial philosophy, even where the results   are not politically comfortable, and an appreciation that fidelity to the text   of the Constitution need not mean cramped interpretations of language that was   written for a changing society. Judge Roberts possesses the personal qualities   we hoped for and testified impressively as to his belief in the judicial values.   While he almost certainly won't surprise America   with generally liberal rulings, <strong>he appears   almost as unlikely to willfully use the law to advance his conservative   politics</strong>.</p></blockquote>
<p><em>Washington   Post</em> editorial, January 15, 2006: <A title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/14/AR2006011400858.html" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/14/AR2006011400858.html">Confirm   Samuel Alito</a></p>
<blockquote><p>Humility is   called for when predicting how a Supreme Court nominee will vote on key issues,   or even what those issues will be, given how people and issues evolve. But it's   fair to guess that Judge <strong>Alito will favor a   judiciary that exercises restraint and does not substitute its judgment for that   of the political branches in areas of their competence</strong>. That's not   all bad.</p></blockquote>
<p><em>Washington   Post</em> editorial, June 29, 2007: <A title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062801969.html" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062801969.html">A   Blow to Brown</a></p>
<blockquote><p>Justice   Kennedy's concurring opinion correctly took the four-justice plurality to task   for its glib assertion, in the opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts   Jr., that the "way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop   discriminating on the basis of race." As Justice Kennedy noted, "Fifty years of   experience since Brown. . . should teach us that the problem before us defies so   easy a solution." There is reason to doubt whether the leeway that Justice   Kennedy would give school systems would be adequate for the task, and, even if   it were, to worry how long that uneasy equipoise would hold on <strong>a court tilting as far to the right as this one   is</strong>.</p></blockquote>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p><em>Washington   Post</em> editorial, September 18, 2005: <A title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/17/AR2005091701133.html" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/17/AR2005091701133.html">Confirm   John Roberts</a></p>
<blockquote><p>Judge   Roberts represents the best nominee liberals can reasonably expect from a   conservative president who promised to appoint judges who shared his philosophy.   Before his nomination, we suggested several criteria that Mr. Bush should adopt   to garner broad bipartisan support: professional qualifications of the highest   caliber, a modest conception of the judicial function, a strong belief in the   stability of precedent, adherence to judicial philosophy, even where the results   are not politically comfortable, and an appreciation that fidelity to the text   of the Constitution need not mean cramped interpretations of language that was   written for a changing society. Judge Roberts possesses the personal qualities   we hoped for and testified impressively as to his belief in the judicial values.   While he almost certainly won't surprise America   with generally liberal rulings, <strong>he appears   almost as unlikely to willfully use the law to advance his conservative   politics</strong>.</p></blockquote>
<p><em>Washington   Post</em> editorial, January 15, 2006: <A title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/14/AR2006011400858.html" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/14/AR2006011400858.html">Confirm   Samuel Alito</a></p>
<blockquote><p>Humility is   called for when predicting how a Supreme Court nominee will vote on key issues,   or even what those issues will be, given how people and issues evolve. But it's   fair to guess that Judge <strong>Alito will favor a   judiciary that exercises restraint and does not substitute its judgment for that   of the political branches in areas of their competence</strong>. That's not   all bad.</p></blockquote>
<p><em>Washington   Post</em> editorial, June 29, 2007: <A title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062801969.html" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062801969.html">A   Blow to Brown</a></p>
<blockquote><p>Justice   Kennedy's concurring opinion correctly took the four-justice plurality to task   for its glib assertion, in the opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts   Jr., that the "way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop   discriminating on the basis of race." As Justice Kennedy noted, "Fifty years of   experience since Brown. . . should teach us that the problem before us defies so   easy a solution." There is reason to doubt whether the leeway that Justice   Kennedy would give school systems would be adequate for the task, and, even if   it were, to worry how long that uneasy equipoise would hold on <strong>a court tilting as far to the right as this one   is</strong>.</p></blockquote>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
</feed>
