Everyone Hates Roberts - So I Like Him!

John Roberts, Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, seems to be pissing off everybody. Good for him. Seems some conservative group, the Public Advocate of the United States (never heard of them) are mad that Roberts did pro bono work on behalf of gays opposing a Colorado law that would have legislated discrimination.

When I first read the story of Roberts' involvement with that case, the White House immediately spun it as "well, he didn't know what he was doing - it was one of a jillion pro bono cases," or something like that. Well, I'm a lawyer, and I am relatively certain that 1) I would not forget who I had worked for (in a case of that magnitude), and 2) I would never work for free on purpose without knowing why and for whom. Thus, Roberts knew what he was doing. Good for him.

On the other side, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) has launched a completely dishonest ad campaign against Roberts. There, they accuse him of defending abortion clinic bombers. What crap. For the whole story, click here . (BTW, I highly recommend the Factcheck.org website for unbiased fact checking of claims by both political "sides.").

Finally, Sen. Arlen Spector (R-PA) is whining that the Supreme Court disrepects Congress when it limits Congress' power to enact legislation pursuant to the Commerce Clause (Article I, Sec. 8). In case you don't know this, Congress has very limited power. Among those few powers is the regulation of interstate commerce. Congress has figured out that if it simply says an issue is a matter of interstate commerce, then it can pass whatever law it wants. In recent years, the Supreme Court has restricted that power, ruling that a number of notable laws were not reasonably within the scope of the Commerce Clause.

Now, Specter calls this "judicial activism." Funny but I bet this is more akin to Associate Justice Antonin Scalia's "originalist" construction approach. Namely, the Court is enforcing the actual terms of the Constitution by restricting Congress' attempts to expand beyond what the founders intended when they drafted the Commerce Clause.

In case Sen. Spector has forgot, this is what's referred to as the "checks" part of "checks and balances." The Court is supposed to act as a check on Congressional (and Executive) power. That's it's fundamental purpose. In any event, Roberts apparently participated in a decision that struck down a law protecting some endangered species in California, noting that the animal (I forget now what it was) lived its entire life in California, and thus could not impact interstate commerce.

This is gonna get good, I'm sure of it. :D