July 22, 2005

GUN-GRABBER:

Roberts dissents from gun search ruling (PETE YOST, July 22, 2005., AP)

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts sided with police but was on the losing end of an appeals court decision on whether officers were within their authority to search the trunk of a suspect's car.

Roberts dissented in a 2-1 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, reversing a man's conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm.

The decision was released by the court Friday, even as Roberts was touring Senate in a political candidate-like search for confirmation votes.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 22, 2005 10:50 AM
Comments

what was all that hoo-ha about judges supposedly not being like candidates for elected office?

Posted by: lonbud at July 22, 2005 5:14 PM

I have no idea what that dude's talking about, but Bench Memos cites a couple great Roberts quotes from the dissent:

"Sometimes a car being driven by an unlicensed driver, with no registration and stolen tags, really does belong to the drivers friend, and sometimes dogs do eat homework, but in neither case is it reasonable to insist on checking out the story before taking other appropriate action."

"I wholeheartedly subscribe to the sentiments expressed in the concurring opinion about the Fourth Amendment's place among our most prized freedoms. But sentiments do not decide cases; facts and the law do."

Posted by: Timothy at July 22, 2005 5:21 PM

Timothy:

You dupe--everyone knows that if you side with the police instead of the criminals where guns are concerned you may as well be wearing jackboots.

Posted by: oj at July 22, 2005 5:28 PM

Timothy: Very nice. Any wonder why Bush likes him?

Posted by: John Resnick at July 22, 2005 5:28 PM

"Might as well be?" I'll have you know my jackboots are very comfortable.

Posted by: Timothy at July 22, 2005 5:30 PM

lonbud, I'm really beginning to think you are dyslexic and have difficulty decoding the written word.

We objected because this judicial nominee's family, not the nominee himself, is being treated by the media like the family of a candidate for elected office. A departure from the media's traditional hands-off treatment of the families of previous judicial nominees, and since those comments, the Washington Post has published an article in its style section which makes really ridiculous statements about the fashion sense or lack of if of the nominees wife,
Mrs. Roberts, who has not been nominated for an appointment to a governmental position nor is she a candidate for elected office.


Posted by: erp at July 22, 2005 6:37 PM

Sorry, here's the article: Mrs. Roberts

Posted by: erp at July 22, 2005 6:44 PM

erp: as i've said, it's my personal belief that dragging Mr. Roberts' family into this is counterproductive. however, can you cite the last time an appointee to the supreme court or the federal judiciary was seen "touring Senate [sic] in a political candidate-like search for confirmation votes"?

Posted by: lonbud at July 22, 2005 7:04 PM

lonbud:

They all do, it's a courtesy.

Posted by: oj at July 22, 2005 7:09 PM

OJ: Careful. You're pulling out that "history" thing again. That doesn't . . . you know . . . resonate, man.

Posted by: John Resnick at July 22, 2005 7:42 PM

lonbud. Did the judge take his wife and kids with him to meet the senators? No. I didn't think so.

Try to analyze this if you will. Why are the media smearing Mrs. Roberts and her pre-school children?

Posted by: erp at July 22, 2005 9:09 PM

erp: it's what they do.

Posted by: lonbud at July 22, 2005 10:09 PM
« NEVER SHOW YOUR OPPONENT HOW WEAK YOUR HAND IS: | Main | STASIS (via Brian Boys): »