[GCFL-discuss] Supreme Court Nominee

[Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 18:04:02 -0700 "Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies
List" <gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> writes:
> Siarlys,
> 
>         You had commented a while back that this Supreme Court 
> Justice was going to be pretty hard to foobar. But everything I hear is
that 
> the Dem.'s hate the man already. Is there new info out there about this

> guy that has changed things? Or are the Dem.s just locking their feet
in 
> the ground no-matter-what in hopes of keeping some kind of power?
> 
> Sincerely,
> Lance

Hi Lance,

All I can give you is my opinion, which I consider to be as good as
Antonin Scalia's, and considerably better than Dan Rather's or Rush
Limbaugh's.

I expect a majority of Democratic senators will end up voting for
Roberts. There are some who will settle for nothing less than a judge who
is in complete accord with their own personal preferences, or seems to
be. (There is no such animal, no matter what your personal preferences
are). There are others who will ask tough questions, because that is
their job, before they approve someone for a lifetime appointment, but
will in the end vote to confirm. Objectively, he is qualified. He leans
in a conservative direction, but he seems to value what the law is over
advancing his personal agenda for the world. I haven't read any new
information that raised sudden opposition where there was none.

I am amused by the flak over the fact that Roberts once did some pro bono
work for a gay rights legal brief. The Bush administration had for weeks
been quietly pointing out that the positions a lawyer takes in private
practice do not reflect what rulings he would make as a judge. Quite
true. In private practice, lawyers find a way to argue for whatever
position their client is paying them (or not paying them) to argue. Since
the sloppily-labeled "right wing" has nowhere to go, they express no
concern. Since groups pushing for gay rights have no reason to be
enthusiastic, they downplay it too.

Just as this individual piece of work is irrelevant, the Democratic
demands for release of briefs Roberts worked on in the Solicitor
General's office are probably irrelevant too. That is what gets the
headlines as far as opposition is concerned. Again, Roberts was working
under orders and for a client. It probably means little about what his
judgement would be on the court. Nit-picking over specific cases is a
poor basis for choosing a justice anyway. And, again, justices look at
things differently once they are on the court. For comparison, consider
that Thomas a Beckett was Henry II's closest friend BEFORE being
appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, but AS archbishop, he swung around to
insist on the prerogatives of the church, rather than the wishes of his
old friend.

The only thing that bothers me is that the media consider the opinions of
various pressure groups about a nominee for the Supreme Court to be
newsworthy. The idea of organizations who will be practicing before the
court lobbying to get "their man" -- the one who will support their
agenda -- onto the court is obscene. Look up Alexander Hamilton in the
Federalist Papers. The justices are appointed for life precisely so they
will apply the law, not follow the popular will. (Scalia has written on
that too). Running around with a microphone to ask pressure groups what
they think of the nominee is just an exercise in filling up a balloon
with hot air. It has little or no impact on the outcome. The president
submitted the nomination to the senate. He's not going to suddenly
withdraw it because Jay Sekulow or James Dobson have doubts and make a
phone call. The senate has to vote to confirm or not. They aren't going
to swing one way or the other because the ACLU says "we don't think this
guy will accept all of our arguments."

I still believe Bush made a smart call. A known ideologue like Priscilla
Owen or Janice Rodgers Brown would have provoked a knock-down drag-out
battle, which he might have lost, and would in any case have tarnished
both his record and the court. Roberts will not be everything he might
have hoped for, but he will be reasonably conservative. You can hardly
expect a president to nominate someone he profoundly disagrees with.
Roberts has all the professional qualifications and no blatant agenda
that might disqualify him. But every justice has proven to be different
than anyone expected, which is how the process is supposed to work. It is
not really possible to rig the court.

I doubt if he will overturn any significant existing precedent. I expect
he will make some calls I believe are wrong in future controversies. But
not always. Justice O'Connor says he is an excellent choice in every way,
except he's not a woman. That's OK, on some other occasion, a man can be
replaced with a woman, and we won't get into having a specific seat
reserved for women, or men, or people of specific skin color. Maybe
sometimes all nine will be women. Maybe sometimes all nine will by of
African descent. Maybe sometimes none of the above. As long as we get
highly qualified people, who will leave the political debates behind take
advantage of not having to run for re-election, and take a hard look at
what the law and the constitution require, or forbid.

Siarlys