Good luck, pal.
Posted on 09/12/2005 11:55:40 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
Day one of confirmation hearings saw differing views of the Constitution and the kinds of questions to be asked.
Judge John Roberts' confirmation hearings got underway on Capitol Hill today. The Senate Judiciary Committee began the process which could lead to Roberts taking office in October as the next chief justice of the United States.
After enduring hours of opening statements from the 18 committee members, the nominee, late in the day, was sworn in—and got a chance to make his opening statement. He left no doubt about where he stands.
"Mr. Chairman, I come before the committee with no agenda, I have no platform," Roberts said. "Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes."
Both judges and justices, he told the committee, "are servants of the law, not the other way around." Roberts then took them to the ballpark.
"Justices are like umpires; umpires don't make the rules, they apply them," he said. "The role of an umpire and a judge is critical—they make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire."
Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, spent most of opening day making statements in which they lectured each other on issues ranging from how to approach the Constitution to what role judges should play to whether it is appropriate for the Senate to question Roberts on issues which have typically been considered out-of-bounds.
"There were no real surprises on opening day," according to Gary Marx, of the Judicial Confirmation Network.
"We saw the Democrats push for Roberts to answer questions about a whole litany of policy prescriptions—and to pledge allegiance to a sundry of liberal issues of the day."
As expected, the committee's three top Democrats—Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.,—told Roberts, who is only 50-years-old, he could shape the Supreme Court for "the next generation" if confirmed to replace his mentor, the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. They argued no questions should be out-of-bounds.
"This hearing is the only opportunity for the American people to examine what kind of justice John Roberts will dispense, if promoted to the Supreme Court," Leahy said, "and the direction in which he would lead the federal judiciary."
Kennedy said there were "real and serious reasons to be deeply concerned about Judge Roberts' record."
"Many of his past statements and writings raise questions about his commitment to equal opportunity and the bipartisan remedies we have adopted in the past," he said.
Schumer said Roberts should answer all questions put to him, arguing that "ideology matters."
"Our obligation is to ask, and your obligation is to answer," Schumer said.
He also said Roberts must be within the "judicial mainstream" to gain his support.
"Don't do it."
But Republican senators argued strongly that the same protocol invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should apply to Roberts: the nominee shouldn't be forced to answer questions on cases or issues that might come before him.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who was on the Texas Supreme Court and served as state attorney general before being elected to the Senate, had words of caution for Roberts.
"Just because we are curious does not mean that our curiosity should be satisfied," he said. "You have no obligation to tell us how you will rule on any issues that might come before you if you sit on the Supreme Court."
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the former committee chairman, was even more pointed in comments he aimed at his Democratic colleagues.
"Some have said that nominees who do not spill their guts about whatever a senator wants to know, are hiding something from the American people," he said. "Some compare a nominee's refusal to violate his judicial oath or abandon judicial ethics to taking the Fifth Amendment. These might be catchy sound bites, but they are patently false."
Hatch said some senators are using the hearings to advance their own political agendas.
"When they lose in the legislature," he told Roberts, "they want the judiciary to give them another bite at the political apple. Politicizing the judiciary leads to politicizing judicial selection."
The role of the Constitution, meantime, played a centerpiece role -- for both Republicans and Democrats.
"I think it's clear that we saw a fundamental difference between the Democrats and Republicans on the view of the judiciary and constitutional government," said Gary Marx, of the Judicial Confirmation Network.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., carried through with her previously expressed intention to "speak for all women" -- a notion that conservative women objected to.
She told the nominee that she has a litmus test and it is abortion.
"For me, one of the most important issues that needs to be addressed by Judge Roberts is the constitutional right to privacy," Feinstein said. "It would be very difficult for me to vote to confirm someone to the Supreme Court whom I knew would overturn Roe v. Wade."
Republicans hammered home the issue that seems to be near-and-dear not only to the heart of conservatives, but to Roberts himself: The Supreme Court is not a super-legislature.
"There are a number of qualities that I've looked for in a Supreme Court nominee," said Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. "I believe that the nominee should be someone who knows he or she is not appointed to impose his or her views of right and wrong."
Several senators, including Lindsey Graham R-S.C., acknowledged that politics and ideology would play a role in these hearings.
"You have been described as brilliant, talented and well qualified—and that's by Democrats," Graham said. "The question is, is that enough in 2005 to get confirmed?"
Roberts for, his part, said, while he had no agenda, he was willing to make a commitment to the senators: politics would not play a role in the court.
"If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind," he said. "I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench. And I will decide every case based on the record, based on the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability."
He then returned to his baseball analogy:
"I will remember that it is my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat."
Good luck, pal.
"Who will be the first lefty scum to make a snide baseball comment?"
guess that depends on who's on first
I wonder if Kennedy's concerns are as deep as Chappaquiddick?
What's the name of the guy on second?
EXCELLENT!!
There should be deep and serious concerns about Kennedy's driving record!
Touche!
Roberts hit that one out of the park.
I think he's capable of making Kennedy, Schumer and Biden look like the petty scum they are.
How deep was that water he abandoned that girl in, where she fought for her life in the air pocket of the car as he ran to seek counsel on preserving his political career, anyhow?
The left's offense is defense, hence the 'Roberts is gay' rumors [detailed here: http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/08/more_grist_for_.html]
Certainly I think we should all pause and consider if Bush is about to appoint a closet case with open sympathies for the gay agenda to lead the SCOTUS for the next 30 or so years.
But some will consider that 'impossible', and so won't even acknowledge the possibility.
"There were no real surprises on opening day," according to Gary Marx, of the Judicial Confirmation Network.
Yet another channel my cable company doesn't carry ;-)
See, his allegience is to stare decisis, not the constitution. In fact, the only time Roberts even mentions the constitution is when he referred to the Russian constitution.
Bush has not given us a justice "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" and to top off the betrayal of his promise he has named him chief justice.
The Roberts nomination needs to be defeated.
Eh, there's an old joke a math professor posted on his door back when I was in College...
Three Umpires were talkling about their job.
The First one says - Some are balls and some are strikes, I call them as they are
The Second one says - Some are balls and some are strikes, I call them as I see 'em
The Third one says - Some are balls and some are strikes, but they ain't nothing until I call them.
Interesting post & comments. Thanks.
I don't know's on third though.
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.