September 14, 2005
Roberts Round-Up
I have had a few people e-mail me in the past few days wondering why I have not commented on the Roberts nomination hearings. Simply put, I have not done so because I believe the hearings are illegitimate and are in violation of the Senate’s advise and consent role with regard to Supreme Court nominations.
Until the early 20th century, Supreme Court nominees were rarely even seen by members of Congress. Barring anything unusual such as a criminal record or obvious moral failings, nominees were voted in with little or no debate. Even after nominees began regularly appearing before the Senate, the appearance was treated as a formality. In fact, as I’ve mention here before, one of President Eisenhower’s nominees refused to appear. He was approved anyway.
The modern perversion of the nomination process really began with Robert Bork in 1987. Bork is a well-qualified conservative who was beaten down by a group of Democratic Senators led by that example of saintly behavior and morals, Teddy Kennedy. Bork’s video rental history even came into play, leading to a law barring such exposures in 1988. Bork’s nomination was eventually defeated.
Kennedy is back on his soap box today, chiding Roberts over things like civil rights. For his part, Roberts is showing incredible restraint. I would have to ask the Senior Balloon from Taxachusetts: “Teddy, you’ve been up here for 40 years…what have you done about civil rights?” Of course, this is not proper discourse, but wouldn’t it make for a great sound byte?
By observing the Democrats at work, one would assume that they lack a basic understanding of the balance of powers. The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law, not make it. However, the Dems know that most of their voting base is ignorant of this fact. Furthermore, liberals in the US can not win elections, so the only way they can further their agenda is to turn to judges who will, indeed, make law from the bench (the Massachusetts gay marriage ruling is an excellent example of this).
I believe that Roberts will be approved. But the cost paid will, once again, be high, both in damage to the man himself and in damage to our judicial system. And the Democrats in this nation will play on, ignorant of how misrepresented they are by their own elected officials.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.opaquelucidity.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/527
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Roberts Round-Up:
» jordan shoes from jordan shoes
jordan shoes If one climbs the rough paths that lead up from the jordan shoes and bush-wackers by the railway, the most dispis [Read More]
Man, I love how anytime Republicans pull some shit its a "non-issue" but whenever the fault is preceived to be on the Democrat side, the moral decay of the country becomes obvious.
Let's talk about this: Roberts is being nominated to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist. There is no reason in the world a man or woman with NO SC experience should be put automatically to the top spot. That is just wrong in every sense. I realize that the job should go to the "best candidate" (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) but you are seriously flawed if you think that someone with 15 or 20 YEARS of seat time at the USSC is somehow less quailifed to be the next Chief Justice.
It is high time that we question each of our leaders thoroughly, because this nomination/appointment will have a profound impact on our country's government and legal system for many years to come. No matter who he or she is, we should grill them about all pertinent issues, and if it were possible, leave the vote up to the people. (Sadly, this arguement has no support because the American public is not interested in the history or ideas of a candidate, see the last two Presidential Elections.)
If this man has nothing to hide, and is the best candidate for the job, what is the problem? If you like him so much, why is his nomination the first time you have ever mentioned him?
I also notice that it's always Teddy this, Teddy that... Look even the Democrats realize he's a F up. He is that slighty off uncle that always shows up at the wrong time, does something stupid, and points at the dog when he farts. We get it. Randy Quaid in National Lampoon. Alright. Like the Reps don't have any cases of that???
Judges need to be more central than Republicans or Democrats, anyway. That's not an opinion, its a fact. A judge has one job, to INTERPRET the law. That's it. One that has leanings to one side or the other will "interpret" things according to preference and not the actual definitions of the words contained within. Roe v Wade has been discussed and overturned how many times? Why is that?
FTR, it's not Roberts I have a problem with, he may make a fine addition to the SC, but I cannot say that there is any reason to make a noob the top dog. It just doesn't work that way. Well, at least is shouldn't.
Posted by: Troy Overton![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.opaquelucidity.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 14, 2005 03:39 PM
Troy,
Several things:
1. No one is arguing about who is more qualified to be the Chief Justice. Did I mention that in my post? Ummmm....wait a minute....no.
2. In the history of the United States, do you know how many men have gone from associate justice to Chief Justice? I'm guessing you don't. The answer is three. That means the other 13 men who have been Chief Justice walked into the job. So using your logic, Presidents Washington, Adams, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, Cleveland, Harding, Truman, Eisenhower and Nixon were all "seriously flawed". Nice.
3. "If this man has nothing to hide, and is the best candidate for the job, what is the problem? If you like him so much, why is his nomination the first time you have ever mentioned him?" Well, shucks, I guess the problem is the Democratic side of the aisle, which is THE POINT OF THE POST. I haven't mentioned him before? What? Does this count as a logical argument in Kentucky?
4. Please name the Republican equivalent of Teddy K. This should be interesting.
5. "That's not an opinion, its a fact." Um, no, professor, it's an opinion. Just like most of what I say is my opinion. The people who confuse their opinions for reality are called delusional.
6. Roberts is not a "leader", he's a judge. We elect our leaders. My point about the nomination process is that this questioning is actually a witchhunt and that, historically, it is unprecedented before 1950 or so.
7. Please recall for us when I have referred to any Republican action as a "non-issue". Maybe I didn't discuss it, but that's because there are plenty of liberal windbags out there doing it for me.
Posted by: Matt_D at September 14, 2005 05:19 PM
Matt,
1. I am not saying that he is not quailified to be the CJ. You didn't either, and because he is a Republican, you wouldn't even if that were the case. The point I made about him going straight to Chief Justice is that this is a flawed way to appoint judges. I understand the system of checks and balances, and it's purpose, but to appoint any judge to the highest appointed position in the country without prior bench time is ludicrous.
2. I am glad that you took the time to point out the Presidents who have appointed Chief Justices to the court, however, that does not make it any more correct because it may have been the action of a prior person or party. I am questioning the action of appointing someone straight to the top instead of nominating a judge that is already on the court. I am not complaining about prior Presidents, or there decisions. As you have mentioned in previous posts, history will glady do that for us, and from the perspective of impact over the course of a generation or longer. Our viewpoint is short sided, as it relates to time.
Nixon didn't have serious flaws? Do I have to say Watergate? The single largest political scandal in American History, with exceptions to maybe the Iran-Contra Affair?
1 out of 13, but we all have dirt. If we dig, we'll find skeletons if all of their closets.
3. The Democrats are questioning a candidate, and you are the one complaining about it. How about we let them do what they do, because you'll sure expect the same courtesy when a Democrat moves into the WH and has to appoint a judge. Maybe it was all ceremonial at times, but politics in this country are always changing, and DIRTY is the name of the game. Don't act for one second that Republicans are so white wedding dress pure. That's BS and there is no denying it.
4. A republican equivalent of Teddy K.? Well, the man is not to be outdone, but embarrassing issues have come to light over the years with men like Trent Lott. But I guess since he's from MS he's supposed to feel that way right? It's not his fault, it was his upbringing. Whatever...
And since you are a techie kind-of-guy, how about ol Orrin Hatch? Now that is an embarassment to the Republicans. Pat Robertson was able to show himself to the public recently. Good to have modern, well-spoken homophobics in our gub'ment. Like I said, Teddy has no equal, but you all have a few gems of your own.
5. I will not quantify your comment about being delusional, but the best arbitrators are people who can listen to both sides of a dispute and make a determination based on what is fair and just for all parties involved. A judge has the duty to interpret the law, and his left or right leanings CLOUD his "interpretation." There is no opinion there. That is all fact. I realize that there is a difference between an arbitration/mediation and a judicial interpretation, but the fact is that we are talking about one person's decision, and his personal and political affiliations affect that thought process or ruling.
6. As a Justice on the SC, or a judge in any court, where the citizens of the country look to you for the answers to questions, or resolution to dispute, you are a leader. This type of leader just happens to be called a judge. Don't agree? Then get yourself in court, have a judgment placed against you and see what happens when you are found in contempt of his court. Are there not leadership skills required to be a judge? Why is that? Because a judge is a leader!
7. You don't refer to Republican "issues." When something goes wrong, and Republicans are to blame, you avoid the topic like the black plague. When I ask you about them, you call it a non-issue. How about your thoughts on Ernie Fletcher and what is happening in Frankfort? This is not a non-issue, but I'm sure that you can spin it off because it's not your state, and it is not a federal case. A governor getting indicted is usually a good sign that he's done something he shouldn't have... And granting pardons to people who have not been accused of anything...
Finally, let's talk about the resignation of FEMA director Michael Brown. The Republicans have to smooth the situation in NOLA over, and they needed a scapegoat. Brown was nobody anyone would miss, and it's his head on a stick. Then Bush comes in after the whole thing is over and kisses some ass to try to make himself look good. How pathetic. Go ahead and put some icing on that cake, Matt, but if it looks like BS, and it smells like BS, it probably is BS. Care for a piece of cake, Matt?
And the whole thing about a logical arguement in KY... come on...
Posted by: Troy Overton at September 15, 2005 11:33 AM
This is what is known in logic classes as a circular argument. However, what I said about your comments about Presidents holds true: using your logic, ALL 13 of the men listed were seriously flawed. Was Nixon seriously flawed? Yes. So was Grant. But not all 13, thus my point.
I'm not going to argue about this anymore with you, Troy, because I think it's very easy to transfer anger from one place to political issues that have nothing to do with the anger at all.
Unfortunately, too many people vote that was as well.
Posted by: Matt_D at September 15, 2005 12:55 PM