Posted on 11/06/2005 11:45:26 AM PST by Daralundy
For conservatives, it was a teaching moment, and a kind of vindication. Two months ago, millions of Americans watched as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, billed as a conservative Republican, sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee, smoothly and confidently responding to the grilling of Democratic senators who had hoped to trip him up and expose him as an "outside the mainstream" danger to American jurisprudence. Roberts was smart, good-humored and sensible. The Democrats, very often, were not -- think of Joe Biden's outburst accusing Roberts of providing "misleading" answers.
Roberts kept his cool, showing the public a conservative who not only knew the law, but had the kind of temperament and balance we conservatives want in a Supreme Court justice.
The memory of that moment is one of the reasons why we responded with a collective sigh of relief to Harriet Miers's withdrawal as a Supreme Court nominee, and with unanimous praise for President Bush's selection of Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench. Once again, we believe we have an opportunity for a teaching moment. Alito, like Roberts, will run rings around the Democratic senators -- even if, this time, the Democrats can remember where the strike zone is.
Most conservatives -- even those who supported her nomination -- were uneasy about Miers's thin qualifications for the court. We know that Roberts is only one of a number of brilliant judicial conservatives whose accomplishments make them highly qualified for the Supreme Court. The Republican talent pool is deep and broad, in a way that it was not when Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were appointing judges.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
"Unanimous praise" by foot. Alito appears to be a weakling when it comes to abortion, including, amazingly, partial-birth-abortion, (where they partially birth the baby then murder it). Alito's defenders quickly summon up "he must accept precedent" as the excuse, but case law is the doctrine of weak and lazy judges.
Alito is being criticized by a lot of Christian conservatives, which I suspect is why Bush didn't nominate him in initially. The Senate hearings will be very interesting, and revealing. My guess is that if Alito is confirmed we'll have another "conservative" justice who won't be taking his faith to work with him.
"Alito's defenders quickly summon up "he must accept precedent" as the excuse, but case law is the doctrine of weak and lazy judges."
Case law and precedent is critical for judges below the supreme court level. Check the record of the judges who get elevated to the SC, including conservatives.
But things are different on the Supreme Court. They are not bound by precedent, even their own.
But what should he say at this point - approve me and I will start overturning settled law? That wouldn't be smart.
That is a very good read!!
They can rule in favor of (abortion) precedent because they feel bound by 'law', but they can write against it in their decisions. According to several New Jersey pro-life organizations Alito has never done this.
Wow! Give me weak and lazy judges every time. I would much rather have a judge with liberal opinions and a wholehearted respect for the precedent of case law and strict statutory interpretation, than I would have a conservative ideologue who would twist case law to get the result that he wants.
The whole issue of politicizing the judiciary by liberal Democrats would go away if the Republicans adopted your value system and decided to keep it politicized, just toward conservative results instead of liberal ones. I have too much respect for the institution of the judiciary to agree with you.
This thread has been bookmarked so when Alito rules against abortion, your crow will be served along with a can of warm beer.
Response: A wise person will wait and see what he does.(Especially since for the last 70 years membership in the court has meant seeking to maximize the harm to the Republic!)
You know what? If Ann Coulter comes out for him and the lefties and other libs decide they like him, I'll know he'll be another Darth Vader Ginsburgh.
You don't seem to understand that much of what is now called 'precedent' is itself the product of liberal idealogues who twisted the law to suit their agendas. That's why we have abortion on demand, drive-through divorce, homosexual 'marriages', Affirmative Action, welfare for every illegal immigrant and the most suicidal immigration policies on the face of the earth. And it's also why we need men with a pair of testicles on the bench, not wimps who watch the nation crumble while ruling in favor of disasterous, horrendous 'precedent'.
Sorry, I meant in Constitutional law.
Echoing Ann Coulter's definition of judicial activism, this passage says it best:
"It is activist to import something into the Constitution that is not written there, based on one's own policy preferences. It is not activist to apply and enforce the Constitution as it is written. That, on the contrary, is the duty of every state and federal judge."
"Alito's defenders quickly summon up "he must accept precedent" as the excuse,"
Learn the difference between "excuse" and "reason", and then try posting again.
"They can rule in favor of (abortion) precedent because they feel bound by 'law', but they can write against it in their decisions. According to several New Jersey pro-life organizations Alito has never done this."
Written opinions are a place to support your findings by citing the precedents and reasoning for that finding.
It is not the place for a personal screed one way or the other.
I swear, why do the people most ignorant about the role of the judiciary make the loudest noises about it?
True for Ann, and true for the author of that WP article!
I do understand your point, but the American judicial system is based on a common law system in which today's decision becomes tomorrow's precedent. If you ignore 75 (or 100) years of legal theory, then you invalidate 1000 years of jurisprudence.
Conservatives try to conserve a system. What a judge (or a judicial panel, especially on an appellate level, and especially on the Supreme Court level) can do is to review particular precedents to decide whether they are wrongly decided. If they decide that an historical case is wrongly decided, then -- as Judge Roberts said -- they can decide how important stare decisis should be and whether the previous decision should be overturned or sustained.
Anything more than that would lead to discrediting the institution of the judiciary and would undermine the entire theory that judicial opinions have to be predictable, with reliable precedents. The damage to society as a whole would be cataclysmic.
He should say that precedents need to be overturned when it's clear that they're in conflict with the law - and that the court, past or present, does not have the power to change the law.
Let the Democrats throw fits over it. If they want to be the ones to defend continued violations of the law, so be it.
You seem to be ignoring the third option: A judge who'll uphold the law, as written, and who understands that courts don't have the power to change the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.