Hillary comes out against Roberts:

The nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States is a matter of tremendous consequence for future generations of Americans. It requires thoughtful inquiry and debate, and I commend my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their dedication to making sure that all questions were presented and that those outside of the Senate had the opportunity to make their voices heard. After serious and careful consideration of the Committee proceedings and Judge Roberts’s writings, I believe I must vote against his confirmation. I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf.

So far, so good, H-dog. The Constitution does require the Senate’s advice and consent. A nominee who hides his views ought to be rejected. If only Congress would exercise its authority to help oversee the executive and judicial branches in other areas…

But then she has to go and screw it up:

The Constitution commands that the Senate provide meaningful advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations, and I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women’s rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches.

Okay. First she seems to ground her decision in the Constitution; then she sneaks in some extra-constitutional liberal blather about fundamental women’s rights, civil rights, and privacy rights. Blah blah blah. What about my right not to be nauseated by this disgusting schlock.Addendum: Manuel Lora told me he recently heard someone say we should stop worrying so much about activist judges and focus instead on activist legislatures! As my malapropism-prone friend Misty would say, “Touche’!”

The Best of Stephan Kinsella