I have tried to pay pretty close attention to the hearings (especially now that I might get questions about it at work), but alas, I was not able to give my undivided attention to the proceeding the past few days. I have, however, tried to keep up with Schumer's remarks to Roberts.
Now the question, to my mind, is not whether Roberts will be confirmed, but whether the Dems should endorse him. Frankly, I think he is a wonderful candidate and will make a fine justice, but what I have heard of the hearings the last four days really upsets me. Through hours and hours of questions, through three days of questioning the most substantive things Roberts told the commission was that he believes in the right to privacy, as found in the liberty clause of the 14th amendment and that two of his favorite movies are "Dr. Zhivago" and "North by Northwest," the man was a tar baby.
Generally I felt that Roberts was taciturn on many issues which were "softballs" (in the words of Schumer-like stupid comments of Pat Roberts and asking for an apology for using the word "amigo" in a memo). More importantly though, he repeatedly refused to answer direct questions from senators about his view of the law. While I think that questions like, "Well, how would you have voted on Kelo?" are stupid, questions which ask how he understands basic legal principles like the interstate commerce clause (which he kind of did open up to Schumer on day 4) ought to be taken seriously. That he was not forthcoming indicates to me that he knew he would be confirmed and thus any answer would only put him at risk.
In Schumer's remarks today I think he said as much when he announced he would vote against the nomination. Again, the senate vote by Schumer is not one for Roberts's conformation, but against meaningless hearings.
Blackbird singing in the dead of night
13 years ago
5 comments:
Well apparently Zev likes certainty in how judges interpret the Constitution, just not certainty in how the Constitution is interpreted.
Imagine a system where our elected officials were simply put forward for a yes/no vote, alone and uncontested. These candidates would likely straddle even more than they do now and refuse to take sides. Why make enemies? Conversely, imagine a system where judicial candidates openly campaigned against eachother for office. The future behavior in office of these campaigning judges would be much clearer. Of course this latter system doesn't really add anything to one where judges left legislating to elected legislators, but I don't think you really want that, Zev.
What's your job?
A number of things Shmuli
1. I am interning in Sen. Schumer's Buffalo office. As I am an intern and not an employee, I have been told that I can still blog about such issues.
2. The effect of the opening line evades me. Please explain.
3. The point of the post was to skirt questions about whether or not the conformation process is good or not. Rather, assuming that the process is in place, how should one vote?
4. a) I don't believe that a judge can, "left legislating to elected legislators." If we actually felt that way we would just have judges call up the sponsors of the bills in question (when possible, of course) and ask them, "So what did you mean when you drafted the Endangered Species Act?" We have a separate judiciary for a reason. It is supposed to act as a check on the legislative arm, and make sure that it does not get out of hand. Now, like it or not, the judges are supposed to interpret the law as they understand it, which IMHO is de facto legislation, by expanding or constricting the law's scope. I think that the authors of the constitution recognized the power of the judiciary and thus had it be an appointed position, giving the executive and legislature at least some say in who we see on the bench.
b) Why not make enemies? You are life tenure and there are 55 of your buddies just waiting to press the yes button. What do you have to gain by trying to evade every question?
2. The only use of fuller answers from Roberts would have been in order to predict how he would behave on the Court. I believe that was Senator Schumer's stated reason for asking the questions. Previously you have told me that you favor "meta-interpretation" of the constitution, which is distinct from normal interpretation of statutes in that there is a much wider set of possible rulings. So to restate, you want more certainty in how judges will interpret the constitution (i.e. Judge Roberts giving a better sense of how he will rule) but less certainty in how the Constitution will be interpreted (because you favor a wider set of possible interpretations for Constitutional text).
3. I don't understand how you can ignore the desirability of this confirmation process, assume it is in place, and announce your opposition based on the confirmation process.
4a. You recognize the distinction between "meta-interpretation" and normal interpretation. I agree there will always be some discretion inherent in the judicial role but expanding beyond that is what I have referred to as judicial legislation. Further, Senator Schumer, I believe, also made reference to the desirability of judicial modesty visa-vis legislative decisions.
4b. Senator Chafee refused to support President Bush. What makes you think he's dying to support Judge Roberts? Quite a few other Senators prefer to vote for the quiet Roberts than a hypothetical Roberts who suggests a stance that could lead to a campaign ad against the Senator. Moreover, how do you ask "What do you have to gain by trying to evade every question?" after saying "That he was not forthcoming indicates to me that he knew he would be confirmed and thus any answer would only put him at risk." Perhaps it wasn't clear that by "making enemies" I meant that the "enemies" could put his nomination at risk. In any case, the relevant question isn't whether there are fifty votes to confirm Judge Roberts, but whether there are fifty votes to kill judicial filibusters in order to confirm Judge Roberts.
I disagree with your suggestion that Senator Schumer voted against Judge Roberts only because the hearings did little to illuminate Judge Roberts' views. Senator Schumer explicitly said he would vote against a nominee who he felt outside the mainstream. Senator Schumer's views of the "mainstream" are, needless to say, somewhat skewed to the left. It also strains credulity to believe that Senator Schumer would have voted against a Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court for empty hearings.
Moreover, I think Judge Roberts' answers to the "softballs" were perfectly fine. Judge Roberts expressed disagreement with Pat Robertson's comments. Senator Schumer's apparent insistence that Judge Roberts express that the comment turn his insides was more than a little silly. Why should Judge Roberts apologize for using the word "amigo" if he didn't think it wrong?
Zev - a few points on your response to shmuli:
1) you wrote "I don't believe that a judge can, "left legislating to elected legislators." If we actually felt that way we would just have judges call up the sponsors of the bills in question (when possible, of course) and ask them, "So what did you mean when you drafted the Endangered Species Act?" Actually, the way it work would be to have the courts kick the question back to Congress to decide. Sound ridiculous? It is called the Napoleonic Code and in its original version it did just that. What present day Napoleonic regimes do (most of the world, and Louisiana) is write legislation that is very exhaustive and imagines all possibilities. I do not advocate such an approach but it is not completely ridiculous.
2)"We have a separate judiciary for a reason. It is supposed to act as a check on the legislative arm" Who says? Who says the seerate judiciary is a check on the legislative arm? the original doctrine of checks and balances mainly refers to congress and the executive. The voters are the ultimate check on Congress and the executive branch. Checks and balances are reciprocal. Congress pasts laws, the president can veto laws, and congress can overide. There is a back and forth between the branches. If the Judiciary is a check on the legislature, where is the balance and who checks the legislature?
Post a Comment