« Order Up One Ankle Bracelet, Men's | Main | Hooray For Boobies »
September 25, 2005
Justice Roberts
If I were a United States Senator, I would vote to confirm John Roberts as Chief Justice.
I know, I just lost many of your votes, if not your respect. And I can see your arguments; as the youngest Chief Justice in two centuries, Roberts is going to extend the conservative tentacles into the Supreme Court for potentially decades. He's a direct threat to Roe vs. Wade, to Americans' right to privacy, and he'll protect big polluters at the expense of the environment. I get it. If you were to think about political beliefs as a football field, Roberts is six yards deep in the right end zone, and I'm sitting on the 20 yard line of the left's side of the field. I understand.
The problem I have with those who are going to oppose Roberts' nomination is this: these many real, tangible and critical issues we care about -- and over which John Roberts is our polar opposite -- are primarily issues of political belief. And no matter how virulently I disagree with Mr. Roberts upon them, I just don't think political opinion litmus tests are a good idea. Keeping an avowed and unapologetic extremist -- a Robert Bork, for example -- off the court is one responsibility a Senator has. But absent clear evidence of that extremism, much of the opposition to Roberts appears to me to be based not on his qualifications, but simply that the left doesn't like his politics.
I don't either. And I think Roberts showed more than a little of the typical conservative hubris and arrogance in dodging so many questions from the Senate. I don't like him -- neither his politics, nor his personality. But I need a better reason to oppose him than disdain for the president who nominated him. (Eleanor Clift of Newsweek suspects that many Senate Democrats would also need a better reason, save for trying to save face with liberal interest groups.) Let's face it: if we wanted to avoid right wing extremists on the court, the time to fight it was during the 2004 election cycle -- and the Democrats blew that opportunity (with a little help from Diebold and questionable election practices in Florida and Ohio).
The Court was no less important 11 months ago than it is now; it was then that we had the chance to stop this joke, and we failed. I believe in opposing the criminal in the White House at almost every turn, simply because his administration has shown itself to be so unprincipled and deceptive that I don't think it should be trusted enough to write a parking ticket. But there are issues of principle against this president, and there are larger issues of principle about philosophies of American democracy.
It's not a question, for me, of Roberts being "the best we could expect from this president." It's a simple question of precedent. Someday, the regime currently in power will be gone, either through a scandal-and-disgust-induced action of the people, or via an election. Someday, there will indeed be another Democratic president, one who may well have an opportunity to name a Supreme Court Justice. And it would infuriate me if/when Republicans would stand on the Senate floor and vote against a potential justice simply because they don't think the justice will be right wing enough for them. The Court is not immune to political issues and concerns, but -- Anotonin Scalia aside -- it ought to be immune to politics. And the Democrats are flirting with a dangerous precedent here.
The Senate is entitled ask questions of a judicial nominee; the Senate is not obligated to coronate a nominee simply because a president wishes it. It's called adviseand consent for a reason. However, the Senate's job is not to enforce issue litmus tests on nominees. It would be wrong if Republicans did it to a Democratic president's nominee; it's just as wrong for Democrats to do it now to a Republican nominee. And the left would do well to be wary of setting that kind of precedent.
Reluctantly, but resignedly, I thus cast my vote "aye."
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thechroniccurmudgeon.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/4
Comments
well said, Curmy. Plus, can he be worse than Renquist? Probably not. Now the O'Connor slot we need to worry about.
Posted by: Mileah at September 29, 2005 10:39 AM
I suppose Ruth Bader Ginsberg, like Bork an avowed and unapologetic extremist, was not displaying hubris and arrogance when she dodged questions at her nomination hearings?
However I applaud your common sense on this matter. You are absolutely right that someday America will elect another Democrat as President and your desire for fair play from BOTH sides is admirable.
Posted by: Larry Skolds at September 29, 2005 05:39 PM
