Here is the full text of Roberts' opinion in Rancho Viejo v. Norton, which is the source of the belief that he is "against" endangered animals.

The panel's opinion in effect asks whether the challenged regulation substantially affects interstate commerce, rather than whether the activity being regulated does so. Thus, the panel sustains the application of the Act in this case because Rancho Viejo's commercial development constitutes interstate commerce and the regulation impinges on that development, not because the incidental taking of arroyo toads can be said to be interstate commerce. See Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d 1062, 1071-73.

Such an approach seems inconsistent with the Supreme Court's holdings in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). The Court in those cases upheld facial Commerce Clause challenges to legislation prohibiting the possession of firearms in school zones and violence against women. Given United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), such a facial challenge can succeed only if there are no circumstances in which the Act at issue can be applied without violating the Commerce Clause. Under the panel's approach in this case, however, if the defendant in Lopez possessed the firearm because he was part of an interstate ring and had brought it to the school to sell it, or the defendant in Morrison assaulted his victims to promote interstate extortion, then clearly the challenged regulations in those cases would have substantially affected interstate commerce, and the facial Commerce Clause challenges would have failed.

That is precisely what the Fifth Circuit concluded recently in rejecting the approach the panel took in this case. See GDF Realty Inv., Ltd. v. Norton, 326 F.3d 622, 634-35 (5th Cir. 2003). As the Fifth Circuit explained, "looking primarily beyond the regulated activity ... would 'effectually obliterate' the limiting purpose of the Commerce Clause," and, under such an approach, "the facial challenges in Lopez and Morri- son would have failed." Id.

The panel's approach in this case leads to the result that regulating the taking of a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California constitutes regulating "Commerce ... among the several States." U.S. Const. art.

I, § 8, cl. 3. To be fair, the panel faithfully applied National Association of Home Builders v. Babbitt, 130 F.3d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1997). En banc review is appropriate because the ap- proach of the panel in this case and NAHB now conflicts with the opinion of a sister circuit - a fact confirmed by that circuit's quotation from the NAHB dissent. See GDF Realty, 326 F.3d at 636 (quoting NAHB, 130 F.3d at 1067 (Sentelle, J., dissenting)). Such review would also afford the opportuni- ty to consider alternative grounds for sustaining application of the Act that may be more consistent with Supreme Court precedent. See Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d at 1067-68 n.2.

I am not sure of the source of the belief that he is "against" women and blacks. He did marry a woman lawyer, and allowed her to continue to practice law EVEN AFTER THEY WERE MARRIED. So perhaps he isn't so bad.

If, however, you continue to oppose Roberts, your duty is clear: you must get elected to the U.S. Senate IMMEDIATELY, and vote against John Roberts' confirmation.

Korchnoi and Kasparov were scheduled to play their Candidates match at Pasadena in conjunction with the Open, so naturally it drew an enormous crowd. The match was cancelled at the last moment, but Korchnoi figured that, as long as he was in town, he might as well stick around and win the tournament. Which he did, in conjunction with Larry Christiansen. (Their tournament game, Christiansen vs Korchnoi, 1983, was probably the most exciting I ever witnessed in person.)

But that was long over by 1:30 AM in the last round, when about the only game left was C-player Wosczyna vs. D-player Bovitz. Wosczyna had ♖+♗ vs. ♖, and by cracky, he was going to give it his best shot.

So here's the scene around 4:00 AM. Hotel staff had been quietly clearing around the other tables and chairs. Nothing in the room was left but two lonely players battling away, with a single spotlight illuminating the board.

And one spectator: Eugene Meyer, studying a game between two players whose combined ratings barely exceeded his own, but as rapt and respectful as if they had been combatants in a Candidates Match.

Finally around 5 AM after ten hours of play without a break, Bovitz found a combination that left bare kings on the board. The players shook hands and conducted a brief post mortem. Then Bovitz, who had been patiently defending all those hours, said,

The summary seemed biased toward Spann, but I gather that Meyer started by suggesting a boycott on moral grounds. Spann countered that for the US to develop they must play the strongest competition possible. Meyer was of the opinion that the current system was too biased in favor of the Soviet Union to allow fair competition.

click for larger view

1.Rc7 Rh6+ 2.Be6 Rxe6+ 3.Kxe6 Kxc7

Bernard Zuckerman vs Eugene Meyer
New York, 1979

click for larger view

Solution (in reverse)