Anything Forums

WASHINGTON - At his appeals court confirmation hearings in 2003, John G. Roberts described federal courts as having to strike a delicate balance as the only unelected branch of government in a nation that cherishes democracy.

Courts shouldn't be so inactive that they abdicate responsibility to interpret the Constitution, he said. But they have to resist overreaching judicial activism.

His own approach?

A look at his 2003 testimony and the opinions he's issued as a judge since then suggests he embraces a conservative judicial restraint that evokes an approach that has largely been absent from the Supreme Court for decades. If Roberts employs a restrained judicial outlook once he's confirmed, he'll probably disappoint both liberals and conservatives who look to the court for consistently favorable political results.

Read the ful story here.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2308, old post ID:36480

I think this country could use a more restrained judiciary. It seems that various groups, when they fail to inspire Congress to legislate in a manner that goes along with their pet cause, they campaign in the courts to try and get an interpretation of the Constitution that they like. I have always wondered how either the Dems or Reps could support the idea of an 'impartial Supreme Court' when every time a nominee comes up, it becomes a big political battle between the so-called liberals and conservatives. Both sides seem to want a Court that will back their own agenda when they come calling.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2308, old post ID:36845