More on Judge Roberts

Here is a link to a Reason Magazine story about the philosophy of Judge John Roberts Jr., President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court.

The story points out that, while Judge Roberts generally holds views that traditional constitutional conservatives, libertarians and states' rights advocates will like, he also:

"...signed on to a D.C. Circuit ruling that allowed the Bush administration to try people accused of terrorism before military commissions that lack the procedural safeguards of both civilian courts and standard courts-martial: Unsworn statements can be used as evidence, the defendant has no right to be present, and both the right to avoid self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence are contingent on ad hoc rules written by the Pentagon."

My Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL..." I have never been able to find the part that says, "unless they are my enemy" or "unless they hold different views" The idea that the executive and the military can create rules and procedures for trying anyone, on the fly, flies in the face of the very notion of the rule of law. It is, in fact, a perfect example of the rule of man, which our founders fought so daringly to overcome.

As for Judge Roberts, he is a member of the Federalist Society and generally holds constitutional views and a generally constructionist judicial temperament. It is my hope that ascention to the high court will free him to reconsider those positions that are not consistent with his overall philosophy. The Freeman's Burden therefore endorses Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court with some reservations.