The Neo-Malthusian Tribulation

JUSTICE KENNEDY: So a candidate says, "This is the worst decision that's come down since Dred Scott, it's a plague on our people, it's an insult to the system, but I'm not telling you how I'll vote." (Laughter.)

MR. GILBERT: Your Honor, that's the point.

Keep an eye on Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002) when John Roberts tries to evade specific questions during his confirmation hearings.

In Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, Wersal, a Republican judicial candidate, along with the Republican Party, challenged a Minnesota ethical canon that prohibited candidates for judicial office from announcing their position on disputed legal issues.

The Supreme Court's decision was 5-4. Guess who voted in favor of Wersal and the Republicans? Guess who voted that it's okay for judicial candidates to announce their positions on disputed legal issues? Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Connor, the five conservative conspirators of Bush v. Gore infamy, that's who.

Think the Republicans will still be agreeing with the decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White when Roberts comes up before the Senate? They'll probably say something like, "Oh, but that's different, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White concerned elections, not the appointment of a federal judge." But why should that make any difference?

Oyez has a brief summary of the case, an MP3 file of the oral argument, and a transcript of the oral argument.

"Judicial activism," "strict constructionism" nothing but meaningless, imprecise fluff - Scalia

MR. GILBERT: [H]e talked about his judicial philosophy. He has said that he can't talk about his judicial philosophy. He did. He said, "I'm a strict constructionist," and he criticized the Minnesota Supreme Court for being a judicial activist. But more --

JUSTICE SCALIA: What does that mean? I mean, that's so fuzzy, that doesn't mean --

MR. GILBERT: Well, but --

JUSTICE SCALIA: -- that doesn't mean anything. It doesn't say whether you're going adopt the incorporation doctrine, whether you believe in substantive due process. It is totally imprecise. It's just nothing but fluff.