7.20.2005

The President's Nominee: John Roberts

You can learn as much about someone by what their friends say about them as by what their opponents do. While I never want to pre-judge or misjudge someone based on their associations, knowing who vouches for them and who does not can be very telling. Such is the case with the president's nominee for the Supreme Court, John Roberts.

Tonight, as I watched some of the coverage of the president's nominee to the Supreme Court, I got a pretty good idea about this man. Not because he gave such a riveting speech. Not because I could hear confidence and character in his tone. Not even because of the gratitude and honor he shared with his family (although I really did like that).

Why I believe that this man is the right man for the job is because of what I read and heard from Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign and NARAL. They hate him.

A representative from Planned Parenthood appeared on Scarborough Country tonight. She was concerned that Judge Roberts, in his role of "crafting" the law, would overturn Roe v. Wade. "Crafting" the law? She could not substantiate any of her allegations, which were disguised as concerns.

I confess I did a little talking back to my television set when she made that claim. My suggestion to Ms. Planned Parenthood: READ THE CONSTITUTION! The role of the Judicial branch of our government is not to write, change or craft any law. The role of the Judiciary is to simply interpret or apply the law to the case before them. There is to be no crafting of any kind in the courts. That's the problem we have now. It's what we call Judicial Activism in a court that ignores the constitution and cites international law as a basis for its decisions. That is crafting, Ms. Planned Parenthood!

The fact that the nominee argued in his role in the Solicitor General's office to overturn Roe v. Wade is absolutely irrelevant. An attorney's role is to argue their case, to convince the court. A judge simply applies the law. If they were so upset about the causes he represented as a lawyer, why was Howard Fineman (Newsweek Editor) the only one I heard say that Roberts actually represented the Playboy Channel in a First Amendment case? Why aren't conservatives in an uproar about that? Answer: because he was serving as a lawyer, not a judge, in that case. I don't mean for this to come off in any way pedantic. I am just amazed at the commentary I heard tonight.

In any case, I then perused NARAL (Pro-Abortion advocates) and the Human Rights Campaign (Gay, Lesbian, Transgender advocates) websites and found more hostility towards Roberts. They are on a mission: do whatever it takes to keep Roberts from being confirmed. The one attack they launch is that this man will overturn Roe v. Wade. They say virtually nothing else. It's an unfounded, fear-based, sensational campaign reflecting the typical irrational, knee-jerk reaction we've seen from extremist groups.

And, honestly, that reaction gives me the idea that I'm really gonna like this guy.

11 Comments:

At 7/20/2005 04:05:00 AM, Blogger Mark said...

on the other hand, I hope he does overturn Roe v Wade. It is abhorrent to say killing babies should be legal

 
At 7/20/2005 04:07:00 AM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

I absolutely agree, Mark. I believe that history will judge us the way we now judge Nazi Germany for the Holocaust!

 
At 7/20/2005 04:41:00 AM, Blogger Layman said...

Roberts, by all accounts, is brilliant. That is not just something people say because he is a good attorney. This is something very smart attorneys say of him in awe. I sometimes tell people that my job is draining because everyday there are smart graduates from the best law schools in the country getting paid a lot of money for the sole purpose of proving me wrong. And you know what, few of us are even in the league of those who find Roberts the best of the best.

He has argued 39 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Many more before other appellate courts. He will eat their lunch at the Confirmation Hearings. Which will be crucial, because the democratic strategy will be to claim that they must filibuster (which is their only chance) Roberts because he refuses to answer certain questions. Those questions will be, of course, questions that no other candidate would answer. Judges should not let the legislature get "gaurantees" from potential judges/justices on how they would rule in specific situations. This violates the Separation of Powers. The Constitution gives the Court, not the Senate, the right to interpret the law. Judges are to exercise this responsibility independent of the legislature. For a judge to promise, under oath, to the legislature that he or she will vote a certain way on a certain issue violates the balance established by the Constitution.

This is no novel objection to answer questions. Justice O'Connor, who has become something of a saint to the Left lately, refused to answer questions on this basis. So too did Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former President of the ACLU. No one refused to vote for either of them because they abided by this standard. Opposition to this candidate on the basis that he properly refuses to answer questions which would betray how he would rule in specific cases would be unprincipled.

 
At 7/20/2005 12:16:00 PM, Anonymous Clayton Bell said...

Well said, layman. I've posted three very long blogs on my own site today, haven't had time to read up on Roberts at all, so I'm here to say...sounds good, everybody!

Have a great day!

 
At 7/20/2005 05:30:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am relieved in Bush's choice. All I have heard thus far on the man is quite positive. Your article is clear and hits most of the salient points. I only wish we could get the media to spend 1/2 as much effort to present reality to the public, instead of thier biased view.
This is, to me, a positive answer to daily prayers. I shall continue to pray for our government!

 
At 7/20/2005 06:45:00 PM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

I agree with you all. Layman, it's great to have an attorney's view. Thank you for the refreshingly unemotional perspective.

And, yes, I do believe this man may very well be an answer to prayer...and the fruit of a Bush mandate in 2004.

 
At 7/20/2005 07:07:00 PM, Anonymous michele rayner said...

I am excited to see the process of his confirmation unfold. I must say that I was extremely encouraged and relieved by Bush's choice. From the little I know about him...I am impressed with his character. President Bush said he had a good heart...because of the way I am wired it resonates with me...especially coming from someone like President Bush.

 
At 7/20/2005 07:41:00 PM, Blogger Layman said...

Unemotional? Who said I was unemotional? I feel very strongly about this and was experiencing many grand emotions last night.

:)

 
At 7/20/2005 07:45:00 PM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

Perhaps a better choice of words would have been a reasoned, articulate and not merely emotional argument. I'm very happy to hear that lawyers have emotions too. :)

 
At 7/20/2005 08:08:00 PM, Blogger Layman said...

Lawyer Joke Alert:

Doctor: You need a heart transplant immediately or you will die. There are two hearts available. One belonged to a 55 year old attorney who himself died of a heart attack, was overweight, and was a heavy smoker. The other heard belonged to a 20 year old college athlete in perfect condition who died tragically in a car accident.

Patient: Give me the lawyer's heart.

Doctor: Are you sure?

Patient: Yes, because he's never used it.

 
At 7/20/2005 11:48:00 PM, Blogger DrPat said...

Lores, I heard your call to Sean Hannity, and realized that you had given him the wrong blog address (there's no "www" in a blogspot). That's why you (fortunately) don't seem to have had a deluge of hating messages.

That said, I like your writing style, and I'd like to invite you to join me in the "sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, technology, and politics" at BlogCritics, http://blogcritics.org.

Halfway down the left side of the page is info on how to join.

I look forward to seeing your reasonable and balanced views on the site!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home