It seems weird that with all the emphasis on presidential elections that the real power is in the hands of an unelected supreme court. Both political sides know this but I don't think many everyday citizens really understand the true stakes involved in naming the right appointee. Because most high profile cultural issues eventually end up being decided by the court we need to make sure that "our guy" is right on the issues we care about. While I hate to agree with Sen. Schumer from New York, it would be nice to have answers from John Roberts on how he stands on the important issues before he is voted on. Granted Schumer and I are looking for very different answers but at least we would both know what we're getting on the bench.
The more I hear about Roberts, the more distrustful I become. My gut tells me he will be good for business on the court and average at best when it comes to the cultural issues. Roberts has stated in the past that Roe V Wade is settled law. Does this mean he wouldn't be willing to change it? Lots of past supreme court cases have been settled law including Dred Scott and Plessy V Ferguson both of which were eventually rightly overturned by later supreme courts. Would Roberts use the constitution in determining if there is a right to abortion or will he use the precedent of the earlier court? We simply don't know.
Party faithful have been reassured in the past that Republican appointees were really conservatives. But once on the court these same justices voted more like liberals and by then there is nothing we can do about it. This time we are told Robert's wife is a pro-life advocate as reassurance. But my question is why take any chance? I have read many editorials about how Roberts is a conservative but just didn't want a paper trail to defend during the proceedings. What good is one's convictions if he doesn't want to defend them during his biggest hour? Why do conservatives run away from their beliefs? Liberals don't. John Roberts should stand up and answer any and all questions put forth to him. If he says things the Democrats don't like then so be it. Let them vote against him. The last time I checked the Republicans were in the Majority.
Off the record reassurances and quiet inferrences about Robert's conservatism simply won't cut it this time. We've been burned too many times before. We need to hear it from him directly before he is confirmed. Otherwise it might be too late.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It seems like the Roberts nomination also has a certain importance because it will, most likely, be the first of at least two appointments that Bush will make in his second term. He might be a swing vote, but that's not a net loss. And an "easy" confirmation establishes a precedent for a future nomination, which might be less "swing." Oh, to be in the Rove/Bush head...
I agree, I am also a little worried because he is "stealth" nominee. I hear is wife is die hard anti-abortion advocate however, and being married I know how much pull she is gonna have behind the scenes.
It's funny you should say that liberals stick to their guns but conservatives don't, Jeff, because Stupid Fat White Man Michael Moore says just the opposite.
I'm happy with the Roberts' nomination. I wish he were less pro-business.
Is there a political movement that represents the Catholics? (pro-life, anti-death penalty, anti-war, anti-unrestrained capitalism)
You made an astute analogy between Roe v. Wade and those other abominable Supreme Court decisions.
I'm former Arizona governor Bruce Babbitt, who torpedoed his own prospective nomination under Clinton by saying "the business of a (Supreme Court) justice is justice."
-Brian (your uncle)
hey jeff, i'll call you later, but i just got back from the orthapedic and i have to wear the stupid splint for 3 more weeks, but if the bone moves i'll need surgery. so i can still go to the game, just don't know if i'll be much fun. well, love you.
Post a Comment