"To me, there is nothing wrong with asking Judge Roberts, "Do you believe the Court should see itself as result-oriented: establishing rights and remedies to address perceived wrongs, even if there is no reasonable constitutional authority to do so? Or do you believe, as you seemed to reveal in the now famous French fry case, that the judiciary should be passive and that no matter how great the perceived injustice the Court must not intervene to correct it in the absence of a sound constitutional basis for doing so?"
And, I think it's even proper for the follow-up questions to penetrate with greater specificity, such as asking whether the Court has overstepped its bounds in particular areas, like abortion, the Commerce Clause and the incorporation doctrine (making federal constitutional rights applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause)."
And, I think it's even proper for the follow-up questions to penetrate with greater specificity, such as asking whether the Court has overstepped its bounds in particular areas, like abortion, the Commerce Clause and the incorporation doctrine (making federal constitutional rights applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause)."
Limbaugh believes that Roberts is a "strict constructionist," but that he also understands the importance of judicial precedent when deciding a case. At the risk of putting words in his mouth, he seems to suggest that the right might want to be a little more aggressive at making sure that Judge Roberts is what he he seems to be... and avoid placing another David Souter on the court. The entire article is worth your time.
Though I appreciate Limbaugh's swagger, we must remember that we have Republican Senators from liberal states whose support we need to get Roberts confirmed. Too much information from the nominee might force them to choose between Roberts and their own re-election.
1 comment:
-"I think it's even proper for the follow-up questions to penetrate with greater specificity, such as asking whether the Court has overstepped its bounds in particular areas, like abortion, ..."
I disagree with Limbaugh on this point. I think that to ask whether the court has overstepped its bounds in particular areas goes beyond asking about judicial philosophy. It seems to me that to answer a question like that, the candidate would have to have a particular case in mind and would have to have already decided how he or she would have ruled on that case.
I do, however, agree with what Limbaugh wrote in another part of his column. This was not included in your post, and I'm paraphrasing Limbaugh here, but he said that he would like to know what Roberts thinks about the doctrine of stare decisis as it applies to the Supreme Court giving weight to its own "established" precedent.
I think it's very legitimate to question the candidate on this. If a case comes before the Supreme Court in which a previous Supreme Court ruling was, in the opinion of the nominee, decided wrongly, does the nominee believe he or she is bound by the previous ruling? This does not require the candidate to indicate whether he or she believes that any specific case was decided wrongly, but simply indicates part of the candidate's judicial philosophy.
I think that conservatives should be asking this of Roberts because he has stated that he believes that Roe v. Wade was decided wrongly. However, does he believe that the court has the authority to reverse itself? Obviously, this question should not be asked in connection with Roe or any other specific case, but just as a general judicial philosophy.
Post a Comment