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.
Farah almost had one of the first serious internet based media outlets at WND. But he's an idiot, and I don't read his work or peruse WND because he's still there.
earth, nut
John Daly with a wood
what does the last signify?
world
nut (Net)
Daly (Daily)
:)
Despite the fact that all they are saying is: "What do we really know about this guy?"
Is just asking that one question such an onerous thing to do?
Yep. WND was on the cutting edge of real Internet media back in the late 90s. They were once ranked #4 on the Internet in hits, if I'm not mistaken.
whew... thanks for clearing that up. :-D
Damn....excellent Mike....very good.
It's still early...
ROFLMAO!
heheh
its ok...The John Daly pic is a bit of a stretch, but I couldnt find anything else....
about 2 hours ago I was probably feeling the same way. I hadn't yet had my morning caffiene... :)
Yeah, when he said democracy ... in the back of my head red flags were going up also. I figured I was the only one in America that caught that.
I would feel ALOT better about this guy had he said republic.
pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly ***or through elected representatives.***
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
Guess it depends on how anal one wants to get?
"I'm guessing the gist of it is that John Roberts"
Probably flew planes into Mena AK and covered up Foster's death too.
Some people just like to split hairs. Like I said earlier in this thread, the word "Democracy" has evolved to mean any form of representative government.
His views mean diddley-squat. You're thinking like a liberal -- wanting a judge to be an activist, just as long as he's activist your way. The only two questions that really matter are 1) does the judge follow the law and the Constitution? and 2) what is the judge's opinions with regard to stare decisis?
The first question is by far the most important -- if a judge strictly follows the law and the Constitution, then everything else will sort itself out. A judge who will uphold the law, even when it disagrees with his personal opinions, is definately the sort that belongs on the USSC. As far as stare decisis goes, this is where you get the differences between the Scalia and Thomas schools of thought... should the USSC reconsider its own decisions? On the one side, it is easy to point to bad decisions like the recent Kelo case as an example of why stare decisis shouldn't be so important; on the flip-side, a USSC that holds little or no respect for previous decisions makes for a less stable legal system, because there's an air of "at whim" out there. In my opinion, some form of balance is needed on this point -- respect precedent, but reserve the option to revisit controverisal cases, especially 5-4 decisions.
Back to Roberts... his history shows that he's good on #1 -- he's not an activist, he follows the law (look at the infamous "french fry" case for an excellent example). I haven't seen or heard anything with regards to #2.
Once Novak and Buchannan start b**tching, I'll know for certain he's the right guy for the job.
Mr. Farah is indeed splitting hairs. John Roberts knows that we have a Republic, not a democracy. The democracy usage is just common terminology and those who know American history recognize the difference or distinction within the context of such usage. I am reminded again that the rabid socialist left who are predictable enemies of this President are less a threat to good people taking public office than are the hair splitting know it alls on the right. John Roberts is an excellent candidate for SCJ and should receive all of the support conservatives can muster.
So would I.
I'm not aware of "hundreds" of Supreme Court decisions being reversed by a court of appeals. Or even one. Maybe Farah can give a few examples in his next column....
For a judge being consider for a seat on a federal appellate court, Roe is settled law. Any federal appellate judicial candidate who couldn't follow Roe as precedent shouldn't be approved by the Senate. You don't pick and choose which precedents to follow. As a lower court, you are bound by the decisions of higher courts. That's first year law student stuff.
That is a completely different question from whether that same judge would or should consider Roe as binding precedent on the Supreme Court, because unlike an appellate court, the Supreme Court has the power to reverse Roe.
Conservatives like Farah tick me off because they're not really judicial conservatives at all. They're activist conservatives who think judges should do the "right thing" regardless of what the law is. All he cares about is the result -- does Roe stand, or not? Whether its judicially proper for an appellate judge to make that decision apparently doesn't figure into his thinking.
Roberts gave the exact answer to that question he should have given.
maybe I am splitting hairs... but i'm just nervous. This guy could be on the bench for 30-40 years.... We can't afford another pro death supreme court justice if we want to see Roe v Wade overturned in our lifetime.
If he had said "republic" instead of "democracy".... I would have seen that as code for "it's ok guys, i'm on your side, don't worry" to us.
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.