It is hard to see Judge Roberts as a judicial activist who would place ideological purity or a particular agenda above or ahead the need for thoughtful legal reasoning.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The vote by the Judiciary Committee reflects the fact that John Roberts is an exceptional nominee with a conservative judicial philosophy - a philosophy that represents mainstream America.
Judge Roberts has assured me personally that he has a healthy respect for precedent and the hard-won rights of Americans.
Hopefully, 21 years later, Judge Roberts possesses an openness with respect to issues of gender-based wage discrimination.
The liberal groups spent months raising money so they could take down anyone President Bush nominated. But they have not been able to touch judge Roberts.
There is a profound difference between an activist judge and an engaged judge.
Any successful nominee should possess both the temperament to interpret the law and the wisdom to do so fairly. The next Supreme Court Justice should have a record of protecting individual rights and a strong willingness to put aside any political agenda.
While I have the greatest respect for the Supreme Court's members, I cannot claim familiarity with any particular judicial philosophies the justices might possess.
The courtroom is a quiet place, Judge Roberts, where you park your political ideology, and you call the balls and you call the strikes.
I think any good judge recognizes his or her place in our constitutional government, and that place is not to upset the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.
A Supreme Court justice needs to understand that he is not a politician. He needs to understand that the judiciary is a passive branch of government. His decisions should not proactively seek to set policy.
No opposing quotes found.