Thursday, July 21, 2005
Judge John Roberts
This is the first of what will probably be many posts about Supreme Court candidate Judge John Roberts.
I never heard of the man before his nomination by Pres. Bush. I haven't read up on him very much as yet, but what I have seen, I like. Excellent resume, lots of experience as a practicing lawyer, both on the public payroll and in private practice. Seems to have solid values. The conventional wisdom as of this writing is that he seems to be an "originalist" in his thinking about how to interpret the Constitution, but there's not enough of a track record from his time on the bench at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to be sure.
Undoubtedly the Dems will try to bork him, but they probably won't succeed, and if they do, it will do them much more harm, in my judgment, than they could do to Bush. In any event, if they remain true to form the Leahys and Schumers will come across as dog-in-the-manger obstructionists; Ted Kennedy will come across as full-on bozo (apologies to Bozo the Clown).
As for myself, I'd be happy with a Justice Roberts (or any other Justice, for that matter) who:
(1) understands and respects the concept of separation of powers among the three equal branches of the US government as spelled out in the Constitution. Many judges nowadays seem to think that the concept applies only to the Executive and Legislative branches, leaving the Judicial branch as the ultimate arbiter of all things -- both a superlegislature and a superexecutive.
(2) understands the difference between the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, which restrict the exercise of power by the government against the people, and the so-called "rights" currently being demanded by this or that pressure group, which are usually affirmative in nature (i.e., they require the government to do something rather than prevent the government from doing something) and which usually result in practice in "some being more equal than others" -- another way of saying "unequal treatment before the law."
(3) understands and respects the concept of federalism, as expressed by the long-underapplied Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. (The Tenth Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Staates respectively, or to the people."
(4) understands that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and that the government is not required to extend the same kind of due process to a terrorist whose goal is to destroy the United States as it must to an ordinary criminal who commits ordinary crimes for personal gain or satisfaction.
From the very little that I have read about Judge Roberts, he seems to fill the bill.
I never heard of the man before his nomination by Pres. Bush. I haven't read up on him very much as yet, but what I have seen, I like. Excellent resume, lots of experience as a practicing lawyer, both on the public payroll and in private practice. Seems to have solid values. The conventional wisdom as of this writing is that he seems to be an "originalist" in his thinking about how to interpret the Constitution, but there's not enough of a track record from his time on the bench at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to be sure.
Undoubtedly the Dems will try to bork him, but they probably won't succeed, and if they do, it will do them much more harm, in my judgment, than they could do to Bush. In any event, if they remain true to form the Leahys and Schumers will come across as dog-in-the-manger obstructionists; Ted Kennedy will come across as full-on bozo (apologies to Bozo the Clown).
As for myself, I'd be happy with a Justice Roberts (or any other Justice, for that matter) who:
(1) understands and respects the concept of separation of powers among the three equal branches of the US government as spelled out in the Constitution. Many judges nowadays seem to think that the concept applies only to the Executive and Legislative branches, leaving the Judicial branch as the ultimate arbiter of all things -- both a superlegislature and a superexecutive.
(2) understands the difference between the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, which restrict the exercise of power by the government against the people, and the so-called "rights" currently being demanded by this or that pressure group, which are usually affirmative in nature (i.e., they require the government to do something rather than prevent the government from doing something) and which usually result in practice in "some being more equal than others" -- another way of saying "unequal treatment before the law."
(3) understands and respects the concept of federalism, as expressed by the long-underapplied Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. (The Tenth Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Staates respectively, or to the people."
(4) understands that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and that the government is not required to extend the same kind of due process to a terrorist whose goal is to destroy the United States as it must to an ordinary criminal who commits ordinary crimes for personal gain or satisfaction.
From the very little that I have read about Judge Roberts, he seems to fill the bill.
Comments:
Post a Comment
