John Roberts And The Constitution

Though I am pro-life I am reluctant to endorse John Roberts simply because he is a lawyer. Lawyer look to precedent before they look to the law the precedent is supposed to have judged by. Precedents at the most should be advise and not law as Congress was endowed with all the legislative powers leaving none left over. Lawyers also believe in altering the meaning of the law for their client. This is otherwise known as activism and when practiced by federal judges violates the limits placed on their powers. John Roberts has admitted both actions. I am not surprised that the American Bar Association gave John Roberts their highest rating since they also hold to these two unconstitutional practices as right.

Though reluctant, I do back John Roberts because the alternatives have the same flaws in that they fail to keep their oath to uphold the Constitution. Indications are that John Roberts though a activist may well be a pro-life activist. If this is true then hopefully his activism overwhelms his awe of precedent so he may uphold the Constitution. He would be upholding the Constitution since in the preamble it states that one of its purposes is “to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. This follows as there is no way to secure the blessing of liberty for our posterity if you back the deliberate and arbitrarily kill them.