More on Judge Roberts
Judge John G. Roberts has answered in writing some of the questions submitted to him by Senators in connection with the hearings to be held in September on his confirmation to the Supreme Court.
The little essay he submitted contains some interesting, but not surprising information, as noted in a New York Times article.
"Judges must be constantly aware that their role, while important, is limited," Judge Roberts wrote. "They do not have a commission to solve society's problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law."
He wrote, "Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system, and a sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath." [Emphasis added]
It's clear to me that Judge Roberts is trying to calm the fears that his first act as a Supreme Court Justice will be to roll back Roe v Wade. Still, the language is somewhat cagey, especially in light of the language he used when he worked as Special Assistent to President Reagan's Attorney General, William French Smith. In a long article presumably ghost written for the AG, Roberts wrote the following:
"Not only are unelected jurists with life tenure less attuned to the popular will than regularly elected officials," he asserted, "but judicial policy making is also inevitably inadequate or imperfect policy making."
One of the important hallmarks of the Supreme Court of the United States is its role of not being bound "by the popular will." The Supreme Court is often in the placed in the position of having to rule on cases where the popular will is simply unconstitutional, as in, for example, matters concerning free speech or unreasonable searches and seizures. It seems to me we don't want or need a Court packed with those who are swayed by popular will rather than the United States Constitution.
I sense a little cognitive dissonance here. I hope the Senate Judiciary Committee picks up on this language and questions Judge Roberts carefully on it. I also hope Judge Roberts answers truthfully and fully.
And if takes all of September and into October, I hope the committee members keep at it.
The little essay he submitted contains some interesting, but not surprising information, as noted in a New York Times article.
"Judges must be constantly aware that their role, while important, is limited," Judge Roberts wrote. "They do not have a commission to solve society's problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law."
He wrote, "Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system, and a sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath." [Emphasis added]
It's clear to me that Judge Roberts is trying to calm the fears that his first act as a Supreme Court Justice will be to roll back Roe v Wade. Still, the language is somewhat cagey, especially in light of the language he used when he worked as Special Assistent to President Reagan's Attorney General, William French Smith. In a long article presumably ghost written for the AG, Roberts wrote the following:
"Not only are unelected jurists with life tenure less attuned to the popular will than regularly elected officials," he asserted, "but judicial policy making is also inevitably inadequate or imperfect policy making."
One of the important hallmarks of the Supreme Court of the United States is its role of not being bound "by the popular will." The Supreme Court is often in the placed in the position of having to rule on cases where the popular will is simply unconstitutional, as in, for example, matters concerning free speech or unreasonable searches and seizures. It seems to me we don't want or need a Court packed with those who are swayed by popular will rather than the United States Constitution.
I sense a little cognitive dissonance here. I hope the Senate Judiciary Committee picks up on this language and questions Judge Roberts carefully on it. I also hope Judge Roberts answers truthfully and fully.
And if takes all of September and into October, I hope the committee members keep at it.
posted by Diane at 5:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home