Tuesday, July 19, 2005
So Now It's Roberts?
Don't Jump to Conclusions
Drudge and others are reporting that the nomination for the Supreme Court vacancy is going to go to John Roberts. Despite Drudge's somewhat melodramatic headlines...saying that Mr. Roberts argued that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, that comment really doesn't provide an accurate picture. If you look at the cases on which Mr. Roberts was an attorney (as in the case Drudge cites) Mr. Roberts isn't necessarily presenting his views as a justice, rather he is providing his client's views (in the case mentioned the views of Republican administrations). An attorney is a servant to his clients, so his record as an attorney isn't a good reflection of what he may believe as a judge. We need to look at the cases he decided when sitting on the bench.
And another aspect that comes into play is "Stare Decisis" or the judicial concept of "let the decision stand." This is a means of assuring continuity within the judicial process and keep precendents from flipping everytime the court's composition changes. A conservative justice is actually more likely to adhere to the principles of stare decisis than is a more liberal judge. (In most cases). Anyway, I'm certain that the media and the politicians will start throwing all sorts of sh*t at the wall as soon as possible...and we'll soon be approaching a new level of hysteria on both the right and left. Ignore it. Look to Mr. Roberts' record as a judge for guidance on what he'd be like as a supreme.
And per my earlier thoughts....it wasn't Edith after all. I can hear her now..."Oh Archie!"
Drudge and others are reporting that the nomination for the Supreme Court vacancy is going to go to John Roberts. Despite Drudge's somewhat melodramatic headlines...saying that Mr. Roberts argued that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, that comment really doesn't provide an accurate picture. If you look at the cases on which Mr. Roberts was an attorney (as in the case Drudge cites) Mr. Roberts isn't necessarily presenting his views as a justice, rather he is providing his client's views (in the case mentioned the views of Republican administrations). An attorney is a servant to his clients, so his record as an attorney isn't a good reflection of what he may believe as a judge. We need to look at the cases he decided when sitting on the bench.
And another aspect that comes into play is "Stare Decisis" or the judicial concept of "let the decision stand." This is a means of assuring continuity within the judicial process and keep precendents from flipping everytime the court's composition changes. A conservative justice is actually more likely to adhere to the principles of stare decisis than is a more liberal judge. (In most cases). Anyway, I'm certain that the media and the politicians will start throwing all sorts of sh*t at the wall as soon as possible...and we'll soon be approaching a new level of hysteria on both the right and left. Ignore it. Look to Mr. Roberts' record as a judge for guidance on what he'd be like as a supreme.
And per my earlier thoughts....it wasn't Edith after all. I can hear her now..."Oh Archie!"
