SCOTUS Potential
Majority Republican senators have been unfailingly admiring of Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts since President Bush announced the nomination Tuesday night. Senator Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee chairman, said Thursday that Roberts is "a non-activist judge, which everyone is looking for." Actually, many of us are still trying to figure out what "activist judge" means.
The White House won't show all of Roberts papers. Well, of course not. Why show his, when they refused to show the papers and opinions of John Bolton, John Negroponte and Alberto Gonzales?
Not much is known about the nominee, causing a great scramble on both sides of the aisle to get to know him. After meeting Roberts this week, Judiciary Committee member Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said: "He's the type of guy you'd want to live next door to." Meaning, one might assume, that he's white. An astute observation on the part of the Senator from Utah.
After their 45 minute meeting, Senator Tom Coburn, also of Utah, said of Roberts, "Ethically, he's got it all together,"
Everyone seems to share the perspective that there's nothing to hate in Roberts. But shouldn't we be looking for a Supreme Court Justice not on the basis of their being "not too hateful", but rather "Really, really, really inspiring?" I mean, after all, this is arguably the most important role in the land -- a model of what citizens of a democracy should strive to be.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, appearing on CBS' "The Early Show," said questions about his approach to cases are appropriate, "But to inquire as to how someone is actually going to decide a case, I think, is inappropriate for a nominee to answer," he added.
OK -- here's one. Strictly hypothetical:
You're a judge and a Supreme Court nominee who, as a lawyer, worked for a time with then President George H.W. Bush, and before that with his predecessor Ronald Reagan, and before that clerked with Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist until Reagan nominated him for Chief Justice and you went to work for Reagan. Among the issues you might have dealt with at the White house was the Iran Contra defense, which somewhat miraculously kept then Vice President Bush above the fray of indictments. Subsequently, you were nominated to the bench by President Bush Sr., although your nomination was rebuked in Congress. Back in private practice, you took it upon yourself to rush to Florida during the disputed 2000 presidential election to council Governors Jeb and George Bush in navigating the Florida Supreme Court to dissuade the court from allowing the actual counting of the votes. Ultimately, with help from concerned souls such as James Baker, John Bolton, John Negroponte, and Alberto Gonzales, an argument was constructed which both confused vote counting and left open an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court -- more than half of whom where named to the court by President's Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior -- which subsequently stopped the vote counting and decided the election in favor of George W. Bush. Shortly thereafter -- very shortly -- young President Bush again nominated you to the bench, and again you were denied by a Republican controlled Congress. Two years later -- bingo -- your third nomination goes through and you are seated on the appellate court in DC. Bear with me; we're in the home stretch. Just three weeks ago, as part of a three judge panel evaluating the government's right to prosecute Guantanamo detainees in secret by military tribunal, you impartially handed George W. Bush, scion of the Family Bush, perhaps the most critical victory of his Presidency, as history will tell. Precisely two weeks later, you are named to the Supreme Court, after a 45 minute interview which Bush stated was the first time he'd ever met you. Two hours later, at the formal announcement, Bush hailed you as one of the "best legal minds of his generation," -- an honor indeed.
So here's the question. Again, strictly hypothetical:
Assuming that you are confirmed to the court, and the issue of vote tampering, voter fraud, or constitutionality of the outcome of the 2000 presidential election should come before the court...what do you do? Do you recuse yourself (along with all the other justices seated on the bench in 2000) or do you hear the case and decide impartially? If the court hears the case and God forbid finds "evil doing" by the President, who is, say for the sake of argument, impeached and removed from office, do you step down, having been named to the bench by a non-president whose fraudulent election you may have helped to secure through arguments presented to this same court?
Kind of a conundrum. Albeit hypothetical.
The White House won't show all of Roberts papers. Well, of course not. Why show his, when they refused to show the papers and opinions of John Bolton, John Negroponte and Alberto Gonzales?
Not much is known about the nominee, causing a great scramble on both sides of the aisle to get to know him. After meeting Roberts this week, Judiciary Committee member Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said: "He's the type of guy you'd want to live next door to." Meaning, one might assume, that he's white. An astute observation on the part of the Senator from Utah.
After their 45 minute meeting, Senator Tom Coburn, also of Utah, said of Roberts, "Ethically, he's got it all together,"
Everyone seems to share the perspective that there's nothing to hate in Roberts. But shouldn't we be looking for a Supreme Court Justice not on the basis of their being "not too hateful", but rather "Really, really, really inspiring?" I mean, after all, this is arguably the most important role in the land -- a model of what citizens of a democracy should strive to be.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, appearing on CBS' "The Early Show," said questions about his approach to cases are appropriate, "But to inquire as to how someone is actually going to decide a case, I think, is inappropriate for a nominee to answer," he added.
OK -- here's one. Strictly hypothetical:
You're a judge and a Supreme Court nominee who, as a lawyer, worked for a time with then President George H.W. Bush, and before that with his predecessor Ronald Reagan, and before that clerked with Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist until Reagan nominated him for Chief Justice and you went to work for Reagan. Among the issues you might have dealt with at the White house was the Iran Contra defense, which somewhat miraculously kept then Vice President Bush above the fray of indictments. Subsequently, you were nominated to the bench by President Bush Sr., although your nomination was rebuked in Congress. Back in private practice, you took it upon yourself to rush to Florida during the disputed 2000 presidential election to council Governors Jeb and George Bush in navigating the Florida Supreme Court to dissuade the court from allowing the actual counting of the votes. Ultimately, with help from concerned souls such as James Baker, John Bolton, John Negroponte, and Alberto Gonzales, an argument was constructed which both confused vote counting and left open an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court -- more than half of whom where named to the court by President's Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior -- which subsequently stopped the vote counting and decided the election in favor of George W. Bush. Shortly thereafter -- very shortly -- young President Bush again nominated you to the bench, and again you were denied by a Republican controlled Congress. Two years later -- bingo -- your third nomination goes through and you are seated on the appellate court in DC. Bear with me; we're in the home stretch. Just three weeks ago, as part of a three judge panel evaluating the government's right to prosecute Guantanamo detainees in secret by military tribunal, you impartially handed George W. Bush, scion of the Family Bush, perhaps the most critical victory of his Presidency, as history will tell. Precisely two weeks later, you are named to the Supreme Court, after a 45 minute interview which Bush stated was the first time he'd ever met you. Two hours later, at the formal announcement, Bush hailed you as one of the "best legal minds of his generation," -- an honor indeed.
So here's the question. Again, strictly hypothetical:
Assuming that you are confirmed to the court, and the issue of vote tampering, voter fraud, or constitutionality of the outcome of the 2000 presidential election should come before the court...what do you do? Do you recuse yourself (along with all the other justices seated on the bench in 2000) or do you hear the case and decide impartially? If the court hears the case and God forbid finds "evil doing" by the President, who is, say for the sake of argument, impeached and removed from office, do you step down, having been named to the bench by a non-president whose fraudulent election you may have helped to secure through arguments presented to this same court?
Kind of a conundrum. Albeit hypothetical.
posted by Sparky at 2:29 PM
0 comments
