The Talking Lion

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Ok, onto Roberts...

Obviously there’s been a lot of talk about this John Roberts character. One of the main things being said is that no one really knows too much about the specifics of his beliefs. His work as a lawyer for Republican administrations and big business marks him as a conservative. Being nominated by George W Bush marks him as a conservative. But what kind of Supreme Court Justice he'll make is a big question.

During the hearings concerning his confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit he was asked many times about his beliefs and how he would interpret the Constitution as a judge. Every time he was asked questions that hoped to shed light on that important detail he answered that he would look first to precedent set by the Supreme Court (via The Talent Show):

Senator DURBIN. Understood. I have been an attorney, represented a client, sometimes argued a position that I did not necessarily buy, personally. And so I am asking you today what is your position on Roe v. Wade?

Mr. ROBERTS.
I don’t—Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. It is not—it’s a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it’s the settled law of the land. There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey.


So, Roberts said that he would respect the precedent, the law of the land, resulting from Roe v Wade. So as a judge in a lower court he pledged to respect the decisions of a higher court, despite his personal beliefs on the issue. The problem is that not only is he on deck to be placed in the highest court (the court, whose decisions create the precedents Roberts so dearly upholds), no one can be sure of what he thinks about Roe or any issue.

If we throw out evidence of his ideology from his career and clients as a lawyer and focus only on his career as a judge, we don't have much to determine what he would bring to the most important court in our nation. Information we need to know. I personally believe that he is, at the very least, sympathetic to his client's causes he fought for as a lawyer, thus an unsuitable nominee based upon what that says about his ideology.

But, because no one seems to know what this guy is all about (on both sides of the aisle, even Ann Coulter is in the dark and displeased) it begs the question: Why is Bush nominating him?

Bush is determined to leave with a legacy that rivals Ronald "Conservative Godhead" Reagan's. Reagan put Scalia and Rehnquist on the bench, there's no way that Bush is risking his place in history by making the mistake conservatives feel his father (Bush 41) made with Justice Souter. (Sin of the father...)

So the lack of knowledge about Roberts takes on a new ominous air.

We might not know what kind of justice Roberts will make, but becuase Bush is nominating him I fear for the worst.


SORRY: Blogger fucked this post up. I'm not sure what happened to the end of it so I rewrote what was there originally (the original was much snappier, my apologies). I don't know what happened.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home