C-SPAN NOW: Judge Roberts

LE

We agree on this.

 

AMEN!

 

In a notorious case in 2002, John Roberts, then a private attorney, argued that several dozen mostly elderly and middle class landowners should not receive a penny in compensation even after a local land use agency had prohibited all use of their property near Lake Tahoe for nearly 30 years.

In a nutshell, Roberts argued that impacts to property owners must be balanced against the utility of the regulation–in a way that tilts almost every time in the government’s favor.

Unfortunately for the landowners, the Court agreed with him.

Of course, one might argue, Roberts was only doing what he was being paid to do as a high-priced lawyer to represent his client. But why then did he take the case for a “substantially reduced” fee as the chief of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency admits?

More disturbingly, Robert’s representation of the agency is entirely consistent with the statist philosophy he expressed in a 1978 Harvard Law Review article on land use law. He argued against clear rules that would put boundaries on government power over property in favor of essentially the same government-friendly “balancing test” that he advocated for in the Lake Tahoe case.

Even more troubling, he proposed a scheme that would deny money to landowners whose property is taken, using the sort of rhetoric that reminds us of Bill Clinton’s prevarications over the meaning of the word “is.” Roberts wrote: “The very terms of the fifth amendment, furthermore, are sufficiently flexible to accommodate changing notions of what compensation is ‘just.’”

Put another way, what we have here is not the “living constitution” so derided by strict constructionists, but a “mutating virus” infinitely malleable in the service of the state, and undeniably threatening to the rights of property owners. Justice O’Connor was a swing vote on property; with Roberts it will be the property owners who will be twisting in the wind.

Source: Pacific Legal Foundation

 

The idea of strict constructionism is pretty much dead in American jurisprudence.

 

Roberts: Precedent Settles Abortion Ruling

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was "settled as a precedent," as he was immediately pressed to address the divisive issue on the second day of his confirmation hearings.

"It's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis," the concept that long-established rulings should be given extra weight, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

President Bush's choice to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, Roberts focused on a 1992 Supreme Court ruling in Casey v.
Planned Parenthood, referring to that as a precedent-setting case in addition to the 1973
Roe v. Wade ruling.

In the Pennsylvania case, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold the core holdings of Roe v. Wade and ban states from outlawing most abortions. The court said states could impose restrictions on the procedure that do not impose an "undue burden" on women.

"It reaffirmed the central holding in Roe v. Wade," Roberts said.

The nominee dismissed any suggestion that his Catholic faith would influence his decisions if he were confirmed to be the nation's 17th chief justice. The Roman Catholic Church strongly opposes abortion.

"There's nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedent of the court faithfully under the principles of stare decisis," Roberts said.

Stare decisis is Latin for "to stand by a decision" and legally translates into the doctrine that says courts are bound by previous decisions, or precedents, particularly when a case has been decided by a higher court.

Source: The Associated Press