Day 1 of Confirmation Hearings
The first day of hearings for the first Supreme Court nomination that I have been politically conscience for was rather anticlimactic. Mostly it was Democrats attempting to put make their votes dependent on the amount Roberts is willing to divulge about his beliefs on specific issues. This was followed by Republicans lauding his resume and good looks (alright maybe not, but they might have well).
Roberts provided something for everyone. Roberts extended Republican Senator Sam Brownback's analogy that likened the proper role of a judge to that of an umpire in a baseball game (of course the problem with that it that is spawns debates on the proper role of an umpire in baseball, not that of a judge, but that is besides the point). This of course was aimed at Republicans who have come to realize that the originalist approach is the key to giving them what they want (just as judicial restraint was the dogma of progressives during the 1920s, when the Supreme Court primarily intervened to strike down New Deal legislation). But Roberts also told many Democrats what they wanted to hear. He resolutely proclaimed that he rejects judicial activism and will respect precedent. (Cass Sunstein had an interesting article about the two wings of conservative judges, minimalists and fundamentalists, with Roberts falling in the former while possible future Justice Priscilla Owens would fall in the latter).
Of course all Roberts opening statement really told us was that he knew how to appease all parties involved. The real test is going to come tomorrow when he is questioned on the key issues by members of both parties. Stay tuned.
-Mr. Alec
posted by Alec Brandon @ 11:02 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
Mihai,
You are correct, when I said that he said that he would respect precedent, I meant it in the sense that he understands the idea of precedent and acknowledges its importance. I felt that expanding in length about Roberts' very short comments was not very worthwhile given that they said very little worth debating. Also his comments were all crafted to assuage certain Senators, so there seemed little point in analyzing the legal ramifications of them all.
On the matter of judicial restraint, I obviously misspoke when I talked about New Deal legislation that existed in the 1920s. The point I was attempting to make required more room than I gave it. Here it is: During the early 1900s one of the few progressives on the court was Felix Frankfurter who viewed Judicial Restraint as the proper course for progressives because up until that point all the Supreme Court did was strike down pro-labor state laws. Then upon FDR's 8 appointees the court shifted and Frankfurter became surprised that progressives who once falled for non-intervention by judges were not intervening in state matters. To me this is the clearest evidence that any judicial theory (especially one purported by a politician) is for the most part, result driven rather than philosophically driven. Meaning that for conservatives, they care more about overturning Roe than they do following a strict "literal or originalist" reading of the constitution. But expect more on this topic because I read a great article on this today.
-Mr. Alec
Post a Comment
<< Home