Posted on 09/13/2005 11:33:59 AM PDT by manny613
With the formal end of the Rehnquist Court, John Roberts will by definition hearken a new era on the Supreme Court if confirmed as the 17th chief justice of the United States. Before there is a "Roberts Court," however, there must first be a clearly defined Chief Justice Roberts. With the start of his Senate hearings, Roberts is beginning the transformation from a circuit judge to chief justice. In doing so, he might want to consider the models left by 16 great and not-so-great predecessors.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
The thing I don't like about Roberts is that he seems dishonest -- not that he lies, but that he deceives on purpose. I'd rather he just pull an in-your-face like Ginsburg than do his market tested drivel about stuff we all already know. But oh well. We're stuck with him so cross your fingers.
See, Roberts knows full well that everyone claims to support the Constitution, and that all judges deny that they are "activist" or that they are ruling on anything other than precisely what the Constitution says and means. So it all boils down to how you interpret the document. HE KNOWS THAT, yet he refuses to give a clue about just how he believes on the key points. When he speaks, he only validates liberal views. He seems ashamed to be associated with conservative views, as though he must cover or make excuses for them. He says, basically, that he didn't find it immoral to aid in the activist decision that was Romer. Roe is "settled" law. Now, maybe he means that and maybe he doesn't. Perhaps that means something different when you are a lower judge than when you are a Supreme being. We don't know. But he is very much on record advocating for the use of the term judicial modesty and restraint as more of a political ploy than as a statement of conviction. AND, he is on record saying that a well known conservative is not "one of us." So who is the "us" he was referring to? That, let me point out, is the KEY to understanding his convicitions. That is the closest I've seen him come to actually identifying with a group and unidentifying with another group. And give me a break, the man is human and he has opinions. Granted, he is to rule strictly on what the constituiton says, not on what he wants it to say. We all know that. BUT WHAT DOES HE THINK IT SAYS?
I really dislike slippery people. The failure of our form of government has become centered on the fact that politicians won't tell voters what they really believe and even judges -- who now count for more than the people's representatives except for the point of nomination -- also refuse to be forthcoming. No one will actually tell the people -- whose consent they are supposed to seek and without such consent they are not even entitled to power -- WHERE THEY REALLY STAND ON THE BIGGEST ISSUES OF THE DAY.
Unfortunately, in order to get the position, he must deal with people who are judging him not on what they say they are judging him, but on other things, under pretense. The whole thing is a targetted game of gotcha. This is hardly an environment for candid empirically defendable answers.
You are right that it stinks...but I can't see how you can really blame him for not putting (his) blood in the water.
Bottom line: He gets confirmed and is one of the most conservative CJs in history.
Yeah, I suppose you're right. Who will win at this game of pretense? I'm guessing that in the end, there are only losers. But right now that seems to be the way our entire system of government works (if you call this "working").
Do they ever talk of developing self-governing virtues in law school? Or is winning the only virtue that counts?
Lawyer mentality gave us "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Mr. Drop-pants chose a verb tense that made what was literally true almost universally misunderstood. Everyone thought he meant one thing -- intentionally -- while only he and his lawyer knew what he literally meant. That's what this reminds me of. If you can't trust plain english during confirmation hearings, then how can you know that the guy will accept the plain english of our Constituion and laws?
I hope this means he will be just as stalwart in a conservative sense as Scalia and Thomas once he gets on the Court. I shudder to contemplate the other possibility: that he left himself escape hatches but will never use them.
I disagree with your premise. He is not deceiving anyone. He is preventing himself from prejudging cases that will come before the court later. That is VERY important. He is not falling in their trap.
I am totally impressed with his command of the law, and ability to discuss each case in detail, on demand, without notes...
IMO, He will be a more conservative judge, than the dims even dreamed about...
In my experience you may be more qualified than most lawyers. First, I'll be you have read the law and precedents that are relevant to your issue, which many lawyers don't bother with. Second, you have tried two cases and many lawyers don't try any.
If all men were wise, temperate, informed, and candid, and shared a common philosophy of life and politics, we could probably fill a Supreme Court vacancy with five minutes of discussion culminating in a handshake.
But mankind is more Hobbesian than noble. And the most noble man must constantly contend with the ignoble. We have adopted an adversary system as the best means of coping with these gross imperfections of human nature. We design rules to define the arena in which adversaries contend and leave it to them to fight a battle in which it is hoped truth or the closest thing to it will remain standing.
These rules do not countenance fraud or willful or deliberate falsehood, but they do permit the most clever wordsmithing of which an adversary is capable. If you can think of a better way of doing it outside an adversarial setting, I commend you. I can think of alternatives too. But I would not trust my adversary not to take advantage of them. I would rather contend with my adversary straight up.
John Roberts is not going to paint himself into a box. He is giving us a glimpse into his outlook, but he's doing it with code words and generalizations, not confrontation. He's doing what he has to do, and I think that once he's confirmed, Constitutionalists will be satisfied.
I am very satisfied so far. And seeing Kennedy and Biden look like diploma-mill lawyers is a wonderful bonus. He's absolutely destroying them on clarity of understanding of case law and on their misinterpretations of his record.
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.