Yesterday at 12 noon EDT Judge John Roberts began the process that could possibly land him in the position of our nation's 17th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Listening to the openning remarks made something painfully clear to me . . . I hate party politics. The vast majority of what I heard from both sides of the aisle sounded a whole lot like "I'll vote for you if you agree with me." I thought the entire reason a Supreme Court justice had a life-long tenure was so they would not be forced to bend to the political whims of the current time.
In this instance it seems that the left is particularly intent on seeing Judge Roberts opinions on certain matters. I believe this would be reversed if he had been appointed by a Democrat so it's not unique to the party. A great example of this would be Senator Kennedy's change of heart from his former position that a nominee not have to answer the specifics of all questions (in keeping with the legal conduct code) and his current position that Judge Roberts answer how he plans to decide in certain types of cases.
It seems self-evident to me that the role of the Judicial branch of our government should be as impartial as possible. They do not exist to tell us what is right and wrong (that is what laws do). Rather they exist to tell us if someone has broken one of the laws of our country. In the case of the Supreme Court this decision has largely come to be based around defining the constitutionality of various lower courts' rulings. If elected Roberts will be at the helm for this process. Therefore, shouldn't we care more about his view of that body of law? We choose Congressmen and women for their beliefs on issues, but we should choose judges for their beliefs about our framework.
For these reasons, I think Roberts is a good choice. Everything I have seen by or about him shows a deep respect for the law. He believes the Constitution of the United States is still the single document that defines who we are as a country. If that foundation is to change, it must be done through ammending the document in the prescribed way, not by interpreting it so vaguely that it looses any real meaning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"looses"? What kind of English major/civil engineer are you? ;)
Seriously, though, good post. I agree, I think Roberts will interpret the law as it is, which is much needed around these parts. Hopefully, if something about the law needs to be changed, the legislators will see that they need to be the ones to change it, not just rely on the whims of the judges to interpret things loosely or in their favor.
Well, Roberts is in. But my husband appears to be out. Kennan, where are you? Where have you gone? Maybe this comment will trigger your email and you'll come back to our little soapbox...
come back, dear! :)
Post a Comment