How many people here agree with Roberts that the Endangered Species

[genius]

Act is unconstitutional?

[philarq]

1. Flawed yes---unconstitutional no

Same type of thing in Britain---Difficult to legislate morality

[SaveElmer]

7. Huh ?

Not sure I understand your point here...

[Laelth]

2. When did Roberts say the law was unconstitutional?

Just curious.

:shrug:

-Laelth

[genius]

5. Here are a couple

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19270

http://media.pfaw.org/roberts.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071900870.html

[Laelth]

6. Thanks for the links.

Just to be clear, I like People for the American Way, and I generally support their positions.

I just read Justice Roberts' dissent in the frog case. The DC Circuit refused to hear a case in which a 3 judge panel had ruled for the application of the ESA. Roberts and another judge thought the circuit should hear the case, en banc (as a whole) to bring the law of the DC Circuit "in line" with recent Supreme Court rulings. The DC Circuit, evidently, didn't want their jurisprudence "in line" with the Supreme Court, so they refused to hear the case.

And Roberts is no dummy. He knew the DC Circuit was going to refuse to hear the case. So, why did he dissent? Pure political posturing ... getting Shrub's attention. IMHO, this says more about his desire to be on the Court than it does about his opinion of the ESA.

He's no saint, mind you. I'm just not convinced from this dissent that he wants to throw out the ESA.

-Laelth

[Yupster]

3. You really need a link

to what he said.

[genius]

4. Look at the People for the American Way web site.

They sent out an alert about this the day after he was nominated.