what was john roberts view points on judical review and checks and balances?

Answer 1

His basic belief is that the court should just interpret the law and not shape policy!

Here is a partial transcript from the judiciary committee's questioning of John Roberts;

..........BROWNBACK: Then what check is there on the court's power?

ROBERTS: Well, I think the primary check is the same one that Alexander Hamilton talked about in the Federalist Papers, because the exact argument was raised in the debates about the Constitution. People were concerned about a new judiciary. What was it going to do? They were concerned that it might deprive them of their rights.

And, of course, Hamilton's famous answer was, the judiciary was going to be the least dangerous branch because it had no power. It didn't have the sword. It didn't have the purse.

And the judges were not going to be able to deprive people of their liberty because they were going to be bound down by rules and precedents; they were going to just interpret the law. And if judges just interpreted the law, there was no threat to liberty from the judicial branch.

So I would say the primary check on the courts has always been judicial self-restraint and a recognition on the part of judges that they have a limited task, that they are insulated from the people.

They're given life tenure, as you mentioned, precisely because they're not shaping policy. They're not supposed to be responsive; they're supposed to just interpret the law.

BROWNBACK: And I guess that's the area that has so many people concerned, is that the judiciary does not show restraint, and judicial restraint is the limitation on the courts, such as in the takings clause debate we just had, really, where the court is saying, Well, no, this is a broader power ; that if you don't restrain yourselves, then who does within this system? Obviously, there's restraints on the Congress. There's restraints on the president. And we like that system; we want that check and balance system. I think the framers put that exceptions clause and other things in there for a clear purpose and for a clear reason..................................................................

Answer 2

i've got had a superb form of journey with breeding and coaching canine, and that's extra significant than my political ideals, yet for the checklist i'm a average Democrat, which makes me a screaming liberal right here. the challenge with risky breed regulations is that the main deadly canine are not limited to a undeniable breed, except they have been bred that way, In otherwords, once you're into dogfighting, you will breed the two maximum effectual or fiercest animals in the wish they might bypass that trait on. considering pitbulls, (an exceedingly faulty term btw) are those frequently used in the hoop, that's the place the challenge comes from, you do not understand, except you bypass to an exceedingly careful breeder what the breeding inventory exchange into, and you may desire to get a canine with a bent to on no account supply up as quickly because it began out. you are able to't practice that away if its there, that's a organic intuition raised to the nth degree by utilising layout. the challenge comes from the way a pit bull's jaw works, it has extra psi than the conventional canine, and it could inflict lots extra injury that maximum canine. some large canine would properly be provoked into battling, and the regulations take that into consideration. At this factor i'd choose to be sure pit bulls not being bred, fairly without papers. Pit bulls are seen to be not a actual breed by utilising the AKC. Its a catchall term for animals with American Staffordshire genes of their historic past.