Sorry. I meant “anyone posting here”. I’m certain you can find someone on the internet who believes almost anything.
Except Jeffrey Toobin is not just “someone on the Internet”. He’s not infallible, but he deserves to be taken seriously. Perhaps more to the point, that article (not written by Toobin) articulates the same argument, on the basis that Roberts paved the way for some potential groundbreaking conservative rulings by not sweating the small stuff and establishing himself as a fair-minded moderate (in my view he’s a moderate the same way as a wolf is a sheep just because he dresses up as one).
Do those scholars you mention believe that “…the Constitution must be interpreted to reflect the changing norms and understandings of an evolving society?”
You mean the same ones that consider the first amendment to cover things other than a literal printing press, and the second amendment to cover types of guns that did not exist at the time of ratification?
I did not say he was. I think you are reading too much into my post.
So let me be very spacific in this instance: Do you, personally, think Roberts would agree to a ruling that completely overturned Roe? And just to be even clearer, I am not asking if you think Roberts would rule to outlaw abortion. Just return the decision to the ststes as things were prior to *Roe. *
“Just”? Oh, is that all? My goodness, whatever is anybody worried about?
Perhaps they might be worried about the context I explicitly put in my post and that you deleted:
Let me underline it for you in case you missed it the first time.
No.
The model of Constitutional analysis I’m discussing is textualism. What you describe above is not, so far as I’m aware, practiced by any leading authority.
But since you said “the same ones” are you aware of leading scholars that take such an approach? Who are they?
My thinking is in agreement with the article I cited, though I’ve believed it ever since Roberts helped uphold the ACA, which is that Roberts has been treading carefully to build an appearance of judicial credibility by mostly avoiding being associated with rulings that could be considered excessively partisan, unless it was something that he really felt strongly about, like Citizens United. And he had Kennedy to contend with, by no means a liberal but not a hard-core rightie. It’s possible that with his foundation laid, and supported by four other like-minded righties all but guaranteeing lock-step right-wing domination of the court for the foreseeable future, he may be emboldened to some real trailblazing right-wing activism, the kind we saw a glimpse of in Citizens United. The era of treading carefully might now be behind him.
There are certainly disturbing indications – while by no means a certainty – that an opportunity to reverse Roe may be another one of those occurrences. I really don’t know, but it’s plausible. Both Roberts and his wife are anti-abortion Catholics; as a lawyer in the administration of the elder Bush, he helped prepare a Supreme Court brief that said “We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled”; he tried to prohibit family planning programs from dispensing information on abortion; he has disparaged the “right to privacy” argument, and other things in his record are in a similar vein. Yes, he said in an earlier confirmation hearing for appellate judge that he considered Roe “settled law”, but Roberts has said many things in confirmation hearings that turned out to be fluff for the listeners rather than his true beliefs.
But things look differently when you’re in the seat of power. Senator Obama thought that the president had less authority to use force against foreign nations than President Obama did. Similarly, Chief Justice Roberts is not necessarily going to view things the same way that client advocate Roberts saw things when he was representing the administration in Rust v. Sullivan.
But we may have to agree to disagree on this matter. I understand where you’re coming from, and I’m not at all saying I’m certain that I know what Roberts will do. I just think that things come down on the “not repeal” side of the argument. You probably think otherwise.
Yes, they do, but not necessarily in a good way.
I’m now confused. You are claiming that there are no leading authorities that recongize freedom of the press to apply to things other than literal presses, or that the second amendment applies to guns that did not exist at the time of ratification?
I’m going to assume that you utterly misunderstood what I said, rather than taking this time to reprint every phone book in the country.
Grampa? What’s a “phone book”?
Thomas and Alito are nothing alike. Thomas is strict in his interpretations. Alito is like a conservative Breyer,
I was hoping for Sykes myself. Fingers crossed.
I doubt it’ll happen, but I’d love to see him nominate a moderate, just to watch all the heads pop on both sides of the aisle.
You should have whispered “Not true”. 
Actually, I didn’t read asahi’s post as saying they were alike, only that a justice like either one of them should fit the bill for most conservatives.
If it happens, it will be one of those fortuitous accidents that happen from time to time, when a justice fails to strictly align with the party line. For all of this faults, Trump is smart enough, in a cunning sort of survivalist way, to understand that his power comes from the mindless support of the extremist partisan troglodytes who currently dominate both houses of Congress. If he ceases to be their puppet, he’s done.
The best we can hope for is that his advisers – the ones who actually know things and are doing the real vetting – will make a mistake. Normally I would say that whoever is nominated has to at least be smart enough not to tip his hand during Democratic questioning at the confirmation hearing, but we are now in an era where facts don’t matter any more. He can be exposed in obvious lies, and the media can widely report it, and it will all be dismissed as “fake news”.
That’s not going to happen. A lot of these guys are stealth candidates, as in they haven’t made strong statements publicly, and defintety WON’T during a hearing, but you can bet they are not going to be in the mold of Kennedy. My guess is that assurances were made by the remaining justices to not overturn stuff willy nilly. I think that’s the only reason Kennedy would leave under Trump. My guess is Roberts becomes the new “moderate” justice who won’t allow anything crazy to happen.
I hope one day every time a justice retires a lot of people stop acting like they only rule on abortion.
If we take Kennedy at his word, he didn’t particularly like Roe. However, he thought that the principle of stare decisis cautioned against overruling in part because it had become such a hot button issue. He held true to his position on that issue, and did his part. I don’t see why he would need some sort of corrupt bargain to retire at the age of 81, even if it means Roe is overturned.