Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Roberts and the law

Newsweek:

...

...don't all lawyers revere the law as a matter of principle, not to mention livelihood? The answer is no, not really, not in the way Roberts does. In the modern view, widely held in many law schools and among lawyers of all kinds, the law is just politics in disguise. Because the law is essentially whatever one faction or another says it is, say so-called postmodernists, there is no point in idealizing the practice of law as a kind of higher calling. But Roberts devoutly does. He sees the law as a set of time-tested rules that allow people to work out their differences and to trust each other—a body of principles and precedents that bring order and predictability to civic life, which have the effect not of dividing, but of harmonizing and unifying society.

...a "bottom up" justice, sensitive to precedent and the facts of each case, not a "top down" justice who comes with a set of ready-made theories....

This is what we should want in all our justices. What the leftist want is a justice who will have a position that he will try to rationalize the facts and the law to fit. Some concervatives are also looking for result oriented justices. That is what has brought the nomination process to the mess it is today. Roberts should be the new standard that applies the law whether he likes it or not. If the people do not like the law as applied, they have the legislative mechanism to change it. If the people do not like a ruling that overturns the law, the mechanism for change is significantly more difficult.