Roberts Revealed
Adam Liptak's analysis of the Roberts hearings in today's Times is an excellent look at what kind of judicial philosophy Roberts will bring to the center chair at the Supreme Court. Said disappointed Federalist Society president Steven Calabresi, "He is not in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. They have more of a theory of how to decide cases, and they look to text and original meaning. Roberts will look at text and original meaning, but he will also look to precedent and the consequences of his decisions."
That sounds just about right to me.
Somehow, the president managed to buck the trend, found himself a good, decent, intelligent, fair, and judicious candidate - and then nominated him to the Court. Judge Roberts acquitted himself magnificently before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he deserves a wide, bipartisan vote of support.
posted by JBD @ 8:19 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Granted I haven't read my philosophy of law books in several years, but it is rather stunning that some think precedent - on principle - should be ignored in judicial decisions. Granted that precedent is certainly not the only appropriate basis for legal decisions (Brown v Board of Education had a lot of precendent against it), but it must play some role or the legel system becomes nothing more than shooting craps and trying to get the judge you want.
I didn't get to hear/see a lot of the confirmation hearings, but what little I did hear sounded a lot as though the Democrats were resigned to the nomination passing and were just trying to pelt him with their own opinions. "Here's what I think, please keep it in mind" kind of stuff.
The best expression of frustration came from Charles Schumer, when he went into the whole movie metaphor. At least we know now that Roberts enjoys Dr. Zhivago and North by Northwest.
Post a Comment
<< Home