No connection between those two things, I freely admit, except for his own RINO squishiness. His neat-o amnesty plan — which opts for 12 million permanent legal residents instead of citizens — is here. Presumably the people at his gym like it. I want to blockquote the piece about Roberts, though, just so that you know whose water he’s carrying. From the mind that brought us “super-duper precedents”:
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) plans to review the Senate testimony of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito to determine if their reversal of several long-standing opinions conflicts with promises they made to senators to win confirmation…
“There are things he has said, and I want to see how well he has complied with it,” Specter said, singling out Roberts.
The Specter inquiry poses a potential political problem for the GOP and future nominees because Democrats are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court moved quicker and more dramatically than advertised to overturn or chip away at prior decisions…
The idea for a review came to Specter when he said he ran into Justice Stephen G. Breyer at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado.
Breyer, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, drew attention last month for suggesting that Roberts and the conservative majority were flouting stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave past decisions undisturbed.
The dumbest thing about this is that it admits no solution even if he proves with Queegian geometric logic that Roberts hasn’t been as faithful to precedent as he’d have liked. What are they going, try to impeach him on grounds of “he didn’t rule the way I thought he would”? If that’s fair cause, where do I go to submit the bill of impeachment against Souter?