I believe that the pursuit of truth and right ideas through honest debate and rigorous argument is a noble undertaking. I leave this life with no regrets. It was a wonderful life — full and complete with the great loves and great endeavors that make it worth living.
I am sad to leave, but I leave with the knowledge that I lived the life that I intended. By The Mercury pottsmerc pottsmerc. We will be delivering a few of our favorite columns from his archives in the coming weeks. Journalism is losing a giant. I think. Like just about everything else we can say about him, this guess is educated only by the meager record, and by Roberts' traditional, conventional life trajectory. And perhaps even by his opening remarks on national television, where he spoke with reverence of the institution to which he has been nominated — from which one might infer now we're really grasping at straws — that he might be reluctant to overturn precedent.
But if he is no Scalia, is he an O'Connor — who moved so steadily leftward through her Washington career that she has become a retroactive icon, a paragon of principled conservatism, to liberal advocacy groups today?
We know that Scalia and Thomas would overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow. As would Rehnquist, for whom Roberts clerked and to whom he is being most closely compared. O'Connor, on the other hand, not only upheld the abortion precedent, but invented an even more radical constitutional principle to justify her decision.
The notorious pronouncement that "at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" opened the door to the Texas case ruling anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional, and Massachusetts' legalization of gay marriage on constitutional grounds.
It is almost impossible to imagine Roberts doing something as grand as that. He would not have the audacity. My guess? He upholds Roe, purely for reasons of precedent.
And very quietly. Krauthammer is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist based in Washington, D. But Clinton clearly intended to set up an unsecured private server. She clearly intended to send those classified emails. She clearly received warnings from her own department about the dangers of using a private email account. That's two grounds for prosecution, one requiring no intent whatsoever.
Yet Comey claims that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Nor has one ever been brought. Not so. Just last year, the Justice Department successfully prosecuted naval reservist Bryan Nishimura, who improperly downloaded classified material to his personal, unclassified electronic devices. The government admitted that there was no evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute the material to others. Nonetheless, he was sentenced to two years of probation, fined and forever prohibited from seeking a security clearance, which effectively kills any chance of working in national security.
So why not Hillary Clinton? The usual answer is that the Clintons are treated by a different standard. Only little people pay. They are too well connected, too well protected to be treated like everybody else. Alternatively, the explanation lies with Comey: He gave in to implicit political pressure, the desire to please those in power. Certainly plausible, but given Comey's reputation for probity and given that he holds a year appointment, I'd suggest a third line of reasoning.
When Chief Justice John Roberts used a tortured, logic-defying argument to uphold Obamacare, he was subjected to similar accusations of bad faith.
0コメント