Posted on 07/21/2005 4:30:51 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile
On Tuesday evening, President Bush nominated Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court of the United States. "He will strictly apply the Constitution and laws, not legislate from the bench," Bush stated of Roberts. Conservatives immediately leapt on the Roberts bandwagon, echoing Bush's sentiments. Talk radio commentator Hugh Hewitt labeled Roberts "a home run." The Heritage Foundation's legal experts cited Roberts' "proven fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law" in backing his nomination. Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard called Roberts "a quality pick."
Perhaps Roberts is a safe pick. He's politically conservative and undoubtedly brilliant. He will sail through the Senate without much hassle. But it is shocking to watch many constitutional originalists and textualists abandon their philosophies in favor of cheap politics.
Roberts is not an originalist. There is nothing in his very short jurisprudential record to indicate that his judicial philosophy involves strict fidelity to the original meaning of the Constitution. He is not Antonin Scalia, nor is he Clarence Thomas. At best, he is William Rehnquist, for whom he once clerked. While Rehnquist has been a steady political conservative on the bench, the bench should not be about political persuasion: It should be about upholding the explicit words of our Founding Fathers. There is nothing to indicate that Roberts prioritizes the words of the Constitution above other, more immediate political concerns.
Roberts made his most eloquent statement of his judicial philosophy during his 2003 confirmation hearings for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He repeatedly emphasized "judicial restraint" and referred to the framers' desire that judges "[discern] the law, not [shape] policy. That means the judges should not look to their own personal views or preferences in deciding the cases before them. Their commission is no license to impose those preferences from the bench." There is something conspicuously absent from this description of the judicial role: an appeal to the original meaning of the Constitution. Roberts rails against "personal views" and advocates judicial neutrality, but he does not suggest an alternative source of values. No judge truly believes that he is imposing personal views on statutes; every judge appeals to some higher set of values, be they moral or legal. Some worship doctrine. Others worship "evolving standards of morality." But there is no substitute for the higher authority of the Constitution itself -- and this, Roberts does not say.
Unfortunately, we have no choice but to closely examine Roberts' words, because he has virtually no judicial record. No one knows where he stands on key cases like Roe v. Wade. Any originalist, whether politically liberal or conservative, would overturn Roe in a heartbeat. It is, quite simply, one of the worst decisions in constitutional history. Yet Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard writes, "Is Roberts likely to join an anti-Roe bloc on the court? Probably not."
Meanwhile, speculation about Roberts' role on the court runs rampant. Some claim that Roberts will be another Rehnquist; others claim he will form a "dynamic center" with Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer. When the Supreme Court wields as much clout as it does, why should originalists sit by while a new 30-year swing-bloc is formed?
To this, some may answer that originalists should simply trust President Bush. I ask: Based on what track record? Republicans have named seven of the last nine Supreme Court appointees. Those justices include anti-originalists Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter. Originalists, take note: President George H.W. Bush believed that Souter would be faithful to the Constitution. In fact, H.W.'s nominating description of Souter sounds virtually identical to his son's in favor of Roberts: "I have selected a person who will interpret the Constitution and, in my view, not legislate from the Federal bench." After a decade of legislating from the bench, it is eminently clear that Souter's stealth candidacy and subsequent decisions have undermined the Constitution and the American system of government as a whole.
Yes, Roberts is a political conservative. His track record amply demonstrates that. But politics is no guarantee of jurisprudence: Just ask Earl Warren. Politics is no guarantee that the Constitution will be upheld: Just ask Warren Burger. Perhaps Roberts will turn out to be a Rehnquist. That will be satisfactory, politically if not constitutionally. But President Bush had the once-in-a-presidency opportunity to nominate a clear originalist. Instead, he abandoned absolute adherence to the Constitution in favor of political expedience.
Frooma whatshername's opinion is irrelevant.
Um, that IS the law partner they were quoting. Michael Medved and Sandy Berger were together when they heard the announcement of Roberts and Medved related that story. So, the big endorsement of how conservative Roberts is comes from Sandy Berger, who probably thinks Karl Marx is rather conservative....compared to Hillary, that is!
"President Bush had the once-in-a-presidency opportunity to nominate a clear originalist."
Can anyone give me a list of names of candidates who would have been considered "clear originalists"? Probably with some explanation why the people deserve to be called originalists.
We can start with Janice Rogers Brown.
Google for "Whiter Shade of Pale" and her name. Don't forget to include her name or you'll be hunting through Procol Harum fan sites.
Of course it's moot to cite what other people did at another time involving different people as indicative of anything. None of the cast of characters, not one, is the same, and it certainly isn't fair to insinuate that GWB had anything at all to do with justices he did not nominate.
Yep, I knew he should've picked Ann Coulter. She's not only a lawyer, she's a historian. And Mrs. Bush would've approved. :-)
"He is a stealth canidate and that is very worrisome , I agree 100% with the author ."
Plus the DemonRATS seem to like him...another reason for being suspicious of him.
Gee, looks like that would have been right around June 23, 2003, when he said "I applaud the Supreme Court...ad nauseum".
It is not man hating and anti-family to expect men to support their children and to refrain from beating their wives.
It is in fact anti-family for men to beat their wives and neglect their children.
But don't miss out on the even "classier" Spanish-language version:
DECLARACIÓN DEL PRESIDENTE
Felicito a la Corte Suprema por reconocer el valor de la diversidad en las universidades de nuestra nación. La diversidad es uno de los mejores puntos fuertes de los Estados Unidos. Las decisiones de la actualidad requieren un equilibrio prudente entre el objetivo de la diversidad en los recintos universitarios y el principio fundamental de igual trato ante la ley.
Mi Administración continuará promoviendo las políticas que aumentan las oportunidades educativas para los estadounidenses de todos los orígenes raciales, étnicos y económicos.
Hay maneras innovadoras y comprobadas en que las universidades e instituciones de educación superior pueden reflejar nuestra diversidad sin utilizar cuotas raciales. La corte ha aclarado que las universidades e instituciones de educación superior deben considerar seriamente y de buena fe las alternativas factibles que no toman en cuenta la raza. Concuerdo que primero debemos considerar estas estrategias que no toman en consideración la raza para hacer que los recintos universitarios sean más acogedores para todos los estudiantes.
La raza es una realidad de la vida estadounidense. Sin embargo, al igual que la corte, aguardo ansiosamente el día en que Estados Unidos realmente sea una sociedad que no tome la raza en cuenta. Mi Administración continuará dedicándose a este importante objetivo.
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) undermines the American family and American society.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1444646/posts
Time to dispose of radical feminist pork
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1445602/posts
"Of course it's moot to cite what other people did at another time involving different people as indicative of anything."
Do you apply that rule to felons, Democrats or Islamists you run into? I doubt it.
"None of the cast of characters, not one, is the same, and it certainly isn't fair to insinuate that GWB had anything at all to do with justices he did not nominate."
Much of the Senate is the same, and certainly much of the RNC is the same. The Beltway hasn't changed much, either. Nor have a significant percentage of the pundits. I think you dismiss too readily a ton of people that are obviously the same, in an effort to wish Judge Roberts into a proven conservative. Conservative he may be. I would like more proof.
While you seem unconcerned and dismissive of Bush as the representative of the same RINO-laden party hierarchy that vetted as conservative and appointed a liberal SCOTUS, I think you're simply kidding yourself. Bush is a moderate. A good man, and a moderate who keeps his promises, but a moderate. And I expected what he promised, not a Souter.
To attack "men" in general with a multitude of family breaking, socialist, government programs under the false pretense of trying to outlaw abortion is nasty in the extreme--befitting only of a pagan goddess worship mentality.
GLDNGUN: You mean the way he wouldn't go into Iraq without the approval of the UN? Wait, he DID go into Iraq without the UN approval. Never mind.
Broaden your thinking, GLDNGUN. Datura is correct--Bush is a globalist.
Money to tsunami (1 billion plus) nations, even though we "can't afford Social Security" so we have to push back the retirement age and cut benefits.
$15 billion to Africa to maintain female genital mutilation and high risk sex, even though we are cutting back in military procurement (F-22, F-35, naval ships, et al., plus military bases because "we can;t afford it".
Bush has not ordered the UN out of the US, and the US out of the UN, even after the Oil-for-Bribery (Food) rip-off.
Bush has yet to denounce the appeal for a global tax on currency exchanges.
I could go on until I fill up the harddisk space on FR's servers, but I will stop here. Bush is a globalist, and Bush is a liberal when it comes to domestic policy, especially fiscal policy.
Read my tagline before you make a childish comment about "Bush bashing"--I voted for Bush both times not because he is a conservative (Bush isn't--he is a liberal), and not because he is nationalistic and places America as #1 priority (Bush does not--Bush is a globalist).
I voted for Bush for the simple reason he was the lesser of two evils--and Kerry was a VERY big evil.
Datura: Thank God we have observant and rational members at FR like you. Otherwise, the sugarcoated candy would eventually give us all an upset stomach.
Oh nonsense. We will know by December. Regardless, you're just confirming the author's point--we don't know *now*.
Yup, now many aspirin is that?
Thank you. Beats me why we should have to settle. I don't have a good feeling about this, but then, since everyone is usually wrong about judges, maybe he'll accidentally be good. But you know they tend not to drift in our direction. Is Roe settled? The GOP is afraid to talk about it.
ROFL! That one cracked me up.
It was a sad thing to see. Who knows? I think we got cheated.
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.