Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nephythys
heh- what a shame that I think you really mean that.
|
What other conclusion is there? I'm not talking about someone with whom I disagree with ocassionally. It's a complex document wrapped in the complex historical era in which it was written. Obviously no two people are ever going to come out with an identical interpretation. But if an individual
consistently has interpretations diametrically opposed to my interpretations nearly across the board, there's no way I can consider that person a good candidate to be part of those kinds of decissions for the country.
Is Roberts one of those people? I honestly have no clue. Most likely not because, fortunately for my own sanity, when it comes to Constitutional law I tend to stradle the ideological line. But then again, if it turns out that I mostly agree with him in his interpretation but those points I happen to disagree with him on are ones that make it to the court and/or result in rulings that I consider wrong and damaging to the nation, I ain't exactly going to be too thrilled that all we got was someone who is qualified on paper.