Files From 80's Lay Out Stances of Bush Nominee
OK, this is the first bit of concern I've had over a man who looks to be eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court:
In another memorandum, he maintained that the Supreme Court, to which he is now nominated, overreached when it denied states the authority to impose residency requirements for welfare recipients.
This was an example, he wrote, of the court's tendency to find fundamental rights, like the right to travel between states, for which there was no explicit basis in the Constitution. "It's that very attitude which we are trying to resist," he wrote.
If we do not have the right to travel unimpeded between the various States, then the whole principle of federalism is a dead letter, and the "full faith and credit" and "commerce" clauses of the Constitution mean nothing. I seem to recall a bit of recent unpleasantness over something very akin to this issue.
As a young Justice Department lawyer in the early 1980's, John G. Roberts advocated judicial restraint on the day's issues.
(link) [NYT > Home Page]/Politics | 0 writebacks | permanent link
comment...