Years of college and decades of reading and I've never come across "concision". The dictionary says 1) Cutting up or cutting off, especially related to circumcision. 2) Economy in writing and speaking achieved by expressing a great deal in just a few words.

Roberts is pretty good with that knife.

"Cutting up or cutting off"

Hehehe...

Hopefully, being in the msjority snd being able to attach his name to well written opinions will help Scalia with his crankiness problem.

Every time the Left gets a hit I go over to Democratic Underground to listen to the piggies squeal. You should have heard them over Alito, oh it was shrill, cacophonous music to my ears.

It was the end of America. It was the end of democracy. It was the dawn of a new dark age. What few rights Americans had retained would now be stripped away. The elections were rigged by Diebold so there was no point voting. At this point only violent revolution would throw off the yoke of the Republican fascists, but the ‘sheeple’ would never look up from their comfortable lives to participate.

Unbelievable, hilarious, it’s like the frenzied inner workings of some UFO cult up in the hills. What’s wrong with these morons? Seriously?

Amos -- They are true believers whose religion has fallen out of fashion.

Posted by: jd watson at March 11, 2006 9:03 PM

What about Harriet?

"Finally, and not a small point: His opinions are enormously persuasive."

Which is exactly why Dubya should have nominated Alito in the first place.

Tom:

Yes, she'd be an ideal replacement for Stevens.

Ali:

Roberts, not Alito. Ms Miers would have signed on to his opinions too.

But would the reasoning have been persuasive?

Ali:

There is no reasoning. Alito is just signing Roberts's opinions. Miers would have too.

oj-

The aricle speaks about a series of unanimous decisions. Persuasive, intellectual leadership is being described here. Harriet Meyers was certainly not expected to provide it.

Tom:

Exactly, she was there to add a vote, which is all Alito's done for now, though eventually he'll veer off from Roberts's opinions in order to vindicate his own peculiar views, as Scalia and Thomas do.

The whole point of Meirs is that she would be a reliable and silent vote joining conservative opinions, thus adding to the clarity and force of the Court's rulings.

Reading the description of John Roberts, I'm reminded of another Chief Justice: John Marshall. Marshall was someone of great intellect but also great modesty. He was charming, low-key and very persuasive. He had a deep knowledge of the law and a clear vision of the role the judiciary should have in the U.S. government. Finally, he wrote clear, concise, well-reasoned opinions.

Sound familar?

I also remember that most of the opinions coming out of the Marshall court were unanimous due to his leadership, authority on the court and persuasive skills.

I'm very struck that Roberts got a unanimous decision on the military recruitment on campuses case. Even Ruth Bader Ginzberg voted with the majority.

If Roberts is indeed a man of Marshall's gifts, we may not need to hope Justice Stevens retires during Bush's administration. Roberts may be worth two justices, particularly when backed up by someone as strong and persuasive as Alito.

One further point about Roberts: He has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other lawyer. I think the number was 39 in all. And I believe he won most if not all his cases. What this means is that he knows that court very, very well. He knows what arguments appeal to which justices. I think he knows how to play this court like a violin. And now, he's in the Chief Justice's chair with all the psychological authority that brings. I wouldn't be surprised we see opinons going more and more Roberts' way. Probably more unanimous opinions too.

Roberts is so young and so talented, it won't be long before all the major issues will have been decided and then what? Will he go from Chief Justice to Commander in Chief?

Not a bad segue and it would be a first.

One last thought (I promise!): I think it would have been a bad thing if Harriet Myers had been confirmed. It would not have helped John Roberts persuade fellow justices to go his way.

I think all justices have considerable intellectual pride which may account for why Republican appointees have in the past been persuaded to vote with the liberals. They wat to vote with the "smart" people, the unversity professors, for example.

Now, two conservative intellectual heavy-weights have been added to the court. Some part of all the justices will want to be on the team with the "smart guys." They don't want to look stupid. But, if Harriet Myers had been there, they would have seen her as a rubber-stamp mediocrity. They wouldn't want to be on her team.

Heavyweights are forced to dissent from other heavyweights just to prove their heaviness. Yes votes count, not heft.

oj-

That's not how it has worked in the past. Leadership is key. The dissenters on activist courts were almost defensive while the passage of time has shown them to be correct. Harriet Meyers is a cipher as likely to be persuaded by the editorial page of the NYT as by a minority on the court. It doesn't make her a bad person just a lightweight. Get over it. The history of popular politics and it's effect, or lack of same on the court is enlightening.Folks who may be easily pushed around don't belong there.

Tom:

You're quite wrong. One thing that made Brennan such a great justice is that he understood the value of just signing even idiotic opinions -- like Blackmun's -- so long as he agreed with the results and that he had Marshall in his hip pocket. Scalia and Thomas feel compelled to show us all how smart they are so they write way more than is helpful and feel to join together even when they're in basic agreement. Roberts won't make that mistake and Miers wouldn't have, but Alito might.

Signing idiotic decisions would seem to preclude one from being considered a great justice, at least in my world. Why are dissenting opinions written if the majority is correct simply because it's the majority? Because the majority can be very wrong.

Joint dissents are written because there are two sides to some issues. Concurrences and separate dissents are written because of ego. Scalia and Thomas are egotists--the jury is out on Alito.

Signing idiotic decisions because you agree with the results makes you a great justice? You really are a monarchist.

Harriet Meyers (sic) is a cipher as likely to be persuaded by the editorial page of the NYT as by a minority on the court.

tom. On what do you base this astonishing statement? How could you possibly know that? Bush has known Miers for a long time and has faith in her abilities. He'd hardly send up her name if she was flighty and easily persuaded, especially by the msm.

For the record, I think Miers was an inspired choice and I hope Bush can find another place in government where her talents can be put to good use after he leaves the White House.

Tom:

Fretting about the reasoning is a trivial intellectual pursuit. Only the principles vindicated matter.

erp-

I don't 'know', in any absolute sense, how Harriet Meyers would conduct herself on the court although if history is any guide, justices without a clear track record of decision making and legal interpretation tend to be very suggestable to the strange schools of thought which have developed over the years. They seem legitimate and can be easily rationalized. The track record for nominees like Ms. Meyers has not been good. In fact they have, many times, produced completely unexpected results. Souter is a good example. Warren another. Intellectual pressure can have unexpected results.Living constitutionalism is a seductive concept although about as intellectually absurd as any.

Souter and Warren have nothing in common with Miers. For the senior Bush to appoint a Miers he'd have gone with Jim Baker or Ike with Sherman Adams.