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.
Yes it is. Trusting a politician is just plain stupid. And cheering while doing so is downright embarrassing, or at least it *should* be. I wonder how many of the cheerleaders ever even read any of the opinions from the judges that Bush has appointed. Few to none, I suspect, which is why I for the most part pay them no attention. Roberts could turn out to be a dream justice. Who knows? I'll applaud when I see it, no sooner.
Percocet, one every 6 hours.
Good point.
And I can point to many instances in which he has stood alone against "globalist" concerns, so I don't think you can make a blanket statement either way.
My name is Russ, NOT Sparky, PAL!
1. Luttig was my personal favorite, still is. Roberts was in his wedding party. It is better to judge lawyers by their friends than by their clients.
2. Neither Souter nor O'Connor were D.C. insiders. She was from the appeals court in the state of AZ.
3. Being a D.C. insider is probably a good thing. You won't be wowed by all the liberals and their cocktail parties like poor Anthony Kennedy from California was.
I think Ben Shipiro and Ann Coulter are dating
""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.""
or Kyoto or the ICC
When he ran for President the first time, he was asked about things like affirmative action and gay rights. His position then, and now (funny how he stays consistent, but people hear what they want to hear in order to stay pissed) is that he believes in equal rights, not special rights. Why do y'all tend to find one statement that can be misconstrued and ignore the real meat?
My goodness; with careful thought and evaluation like that, you must have really sucked up all Kerry's "nuances". If an intelligent person looks at the President's views before the ruling, looks at his history of not whining, but staying a class act, even in defeat, and actually reads all the words of his statement; that person will understand that he was being polite and trying not to alienate the egos on the SCOTUS unnecessarily. Only an idiot would actually believe he was happy about the ruling.
I find it absolutely amazing how many folks seem to want to trash the bst president since The Gipper and try to help the Dims and MSM do their dirty work by setting up chasms of divisivness among Bush supporters because their own pet peeve hasn't been taken care of. President Bush has done his best to keep his promises and to do the right thing. In some things, I disagree, but I find it useless and even harmful to bet the whole store on one or two issues - in a war, and he is at war with the radical left, it is stupid to risk the whole war in order to fight a currently unwinnable battle - Bush is smart enough to know that.
Bush is an honorable man who understands the forces against him and does his best to prepare for the long run without stooping to the level of the enemy - not complicated...
i think the president of the united states did a remarkable job!
consider the inflammatory rhetoric of the liberals, their attacks since the bork and thomas nominations, and the current onslaught of lies from moveon.org and george soros.
The more I hear the more I believe this is good pick.
Obviously that portion of the left hates Roberts. But I think it more likely they simply hate anything Bush does.
I won't be swayed by 'the weirdo left hates Roberts,' simply because the weirdo left hated Souter, too. They are irrelevant to the issue I raise, anyway, which is that Bush should have nominated someone we didn't have to worry and wonder about.
In his confirmation testimony two years ago, Roberts said that judges should be "ever mindful that they are insulated from democratic pressures precisely because the Framers expected them to be discerning law, not shaping policy," and added: "That means that judges should not look to their own personal views or preferences in deciding the cases before them. Their commission is no license to impose their preferences from the bench."
Does Arlen Specter publicly disagree with those statements?
I doubt most RINOs will disavow them.
However, that language is certainly a more persuasive statement from Roberts than some of the other stuff I've seen cited. I'm gonna look at that same hearing in full.
Sorry to see that you, Anita Hill and the abortion crowd are so concerned. Well, not really.
"Sorry to see that you, Anita Hill and the abortion crowd are so concerned. Well, not really."
Not surprised at all that you don't care if the SCOTUS is constitutionalist or full of RINOs. It was just a matter of time before you got to the personal insults and tried your usual smearing by association tactics. I guess you'd lump Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer, Ben Shapiro, and Freddy Barnes in with 'Anita Hill and the abortion crowd' too.
LOL! I do care about the Supreme Court which is why I'm comfortable with Roberts. But I am enjoying watching your sisterhood whine, cry and carry on so.
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.