Posted on 07/21/2005 7:06:36 AM PDT by Theodore R.
On John Roberts
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: July 21, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
President Bush's selection of John Roberts as Supreme Court nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor is being hailed as a stroke of genius.
He has the likely opposition off balance because the nominee does not have a record of writings and positions that can be easily attacked and challenged.
He is said to be a very nice man with a nice family and to possess a brilliant legal mind.
At first blush, Roberts seems to be an acceptable choice for Americans who still believe in the Constitution. Nothing is his background would suggest he is a lawmaker disguised as a judge.
But, given this background, which makes it so difficult to figure him out, could Roberts be fooling the very people who are most supportive of him right now?
It has happened before.
Just think of Anthony Kennedy and David Souter.
It concerns me that Bush apparently chose a nominee based in part on a strategy of heading off controversy with the Democratic opposition.
I personally believe controversy is a very healthy thing in a free and open and vibrant society. Why shouldn't we debate the big issues of the day? Why shouldn't we get our disagreements out on the table? Why shouldn't we challenge the political and cultural orthodoxy of the day?
Supreme Court justices are very important. But are they more important than educating the public on the way our constitutional system is supposed to work?
There are other concerns about Roberts.
Despite his brilliant legal mind, or, perhaps, because of it, he seems a little confused about the way a constitutional free republic is supposed to operate.
While he argued against Roe v. Wade during his days as a lawyer in the administration of George H.W. Bush, he later explained that position in a way that should make all constitutionalists shudder.
Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for the appeals court about his own personal views on the issue of abortion and the landmark 1973 ruling, he said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
Is Roberts not himself confusing a badly decided ruling of the court with "the settled law of the land"?
A Supreme Court decision is simply that – a Supreme Court decision. Hundreds of them have been reversed throughout our history as a nation. There is nothing "settled" about a ruling of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not and cannot make law, or we need to revise Article 1, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves this power exclusively to the Congress of the United States.
These are the kinds of issues that need to be talked about openly and honestly and debated among the American people. In fact, the meaning of the Constitution and the way we apply it to our lives in this country is a bigger issue even than Roe v. Wade.
Without a perversion of the Constitution, we would never have had a Roe. v. Wade decision.
I have one other concern about Roberts – minor in comparison to his characterization of Roe as "the settled law of the land," but worth mentioning nonetheless. In his brief remarks following the president's formal announcement of his nomination, Roberts twice referred to our system of governance in the U.S. as a "democracy."
"Before I became a judge, my law practice consisted largely of arguing cases before the court," he said. "That experience left me with a profound appreciation for the role of the court in our constitutional democracy and a deep regard for the court as an institution."
Later he added: "It's also appropriate for me to acknowledge that I would not be standing here today if it were not for the sacrifice and help of my parents, Jack and Rosemary Roberts, my three sisters, Cathy, Peggy and Barbara, and of course, my wife, Jane. And I also want to acknowledge my children – my daughter, Josie, my son, Jack – who remind me every day why it's so important for us to work to preserve the institutions of our democracy."
I may be accused of splitting hairs, but it offends me when our highest public officials refer to our system of governance as a "democracy." The word appears nowhere in our founding documents. The founders saw democracy as a terrible system – one that always leads to despotism. They carefully created a system of governance unique to the U.S. – a constitutional free republic that protected the rights of individuals and minorities and balanced the will of the people with the rule of law.
I don't know about John Roberts. I will accept that he is a brilliant man, a decent man and probably better than at least six current justices. But it takes an exceptionally strong character to stand up to the pressures of the beltway establishment and the decaying American political culture – especially with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
I personally would prefer to know on which side of the barricades John Roberts stands.
ahhh yes....Joe Farah is again showing why we should do exactly what he says we shouldnt.....
I wonder if the NYT will employ him after THIS article or not?
what a Maroon....
This sort of sounds like Ted Kennedy's statement.
I believe Mr. Roberts called our system of governance a "Representative Democracy"
My thought exactly. Frankly, I don't give a damn what Joe Farah thinks.
Didn't you read the actual quotes that Farah wrote in the following paragraphs? Or do you have evidence that the two quotes are incorrect?
Hasn't anyone actually IN government read the Constitution? While we have representation in Congress, we are not a "representitive democracy". Nor should we be.
Bingo! Farah is a contrarian ..and often wrong.
Calling Farah names and making snide remarks won't change the fact that the questions he raises are legitimate.
I personally think Roberts is going to make us very happy in the end.
I read that as a prohibition on Democrats to holding power. ;-)
Now there is a concept that makes me smile.
It's only a stroke of genius if he actually turns out to be a real conservative...
If he turns out to be another Stevens or Souter... Bush will in the end look like an idiot.
It's a shame that no one on our side is demanding for this guy to disclose his views. Why is it Republicans always have to leave it to chance when we nominate a USSCJ but the liberals get it right 100% of the time.
I used to enjoy WND but the website is reaching Weekly World News status.
Issues and policies can change (along with your position/perceptions on them based on a moment in time), but your fortitude in rejecting "illegal" foreign "precedents" and "standards" is critical to the primary function of the SC: to support OUR Constitution.
Then he should feel at home here on cultural threads.
Since it said Joe Farrach I'm not going to bother to read the article but I'm guessing the gist of it is that John Roberts smuggled a suitcase nuke in from Mexico and he plans to knock out our telecommunications with a giant EMP blast. Is that about right?
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.