Antagonize and Dissent
As part of the system of checks and balances in the Constitution, the Senate is tasked with providing “advice and consent” to nominees for various offices (and treaties, of course, but that is not the subject today). This directive was meant to combat the nepotism and lucrative rewards for unqualified candidates that was rampant in 18th century (imperial) politics. Having a supposedly dispassionate group of Senators debate the relative merits of a given candidate for a given office was seen as one more bulwark against repression of liberty.
Today, however, we are faced with the circus of the confirmation hearings for John Roberts. Rather than carrying out their responsibility in a dignified manner, many of the Democratic Senators are behaving as petulant children, even to the point of interrupting Roberts and then accusing him of giving incomplete answers. Their disrespectful, grandstanding speeches and comments do no justice to the great men who framed our political system.
Many of the “questions” involve citing some 20 year old passage from one of Roberts’ briefs, followed by a 5 minute speech railing against the perceived anti-whatever-is-my-hotbutton-issue contained therein. That speech will then conclude with some sort of question along the lines of “when did you stop beating your wife?” At times, when Roberts gave an answer that did not fit within the pre-determined responses desired by the Senator asking the question, said Senator would then complain that Roberts was being evasive or misleading. This political posturing is patently outside the scope of “advice and consent.”
When someone applies for a job, the only thing that is relevant is his experience with respect to the specific functions that the job will require. Qualification for some specific office under the United States should be no different. It should rest solely on the nominee’s direct, measurable experience in carrying out whatever functions are required in that job. The focus must be on this candidate for this job.
It is clear that when given the chance, both Democrats and Republicans will choose to equate personal beliefs, religion, or comments as a private citizen with fitness for office. What the Senators have failed to understand, however, is that a truly independent judiciary whose sole function is to interpret laws made by the legislature, would, by requirement of the office, have to do so without regard to personal opinion. Whether a justice adheres to stare decisis or not is immaterial as the laws must be interpreted based on the Constitution, not ideology.
The question then of how to provide advice and consent becomes simply a matter of examining a nominee’s previous rulings. It is far less important if a candidate for the Supreme Court personally agrees with some social issue than it is if his rulings were influenced by those opinions. And despite what the Senators think, it is possible to make that determination without resorting to quote mining and questioning a candidate’s personal beliefs and opinions. The simple test is to see if a ruling is consistent with the existing law and the Constitution itself.
Much of the time in the nomination hearings has been taken up with discussion of Roberts’ views on Roe v. Wade and abortion in general. What few of the Senators seem to acknowledge, however, is that Roe did not legalize abortion. Roe upheld a right to privacy, one consequence of which was that it was unconstitutional to ban abortion. The dissenting opinion in Roe was not that abortion was illegal, rather that the law did not violate the right to privacy. This is a subtle but crucial difference, and it is that difference which allows a justice to have a personal belief one way or another on a moral issue while still performing his duty to uphold the law on a legal one.
Any law or ruling on any issue can be similarly examined to see if it is consistent with a right or duty embodied within the Constitution. It’s not rocket science. The Senators need to behave like mature adults and use this opportunity to determine whether or not Roberts is sufficiently qualified to be Chief Justice. It is not time for them to grandstand in the hopes of securing enough votes for re-election next term. It is high time that the voting public demand better service from our elected officials.
Today, however, we are faced with the circus of the confirmation hearings for John Roberts. Rather than carrying out their responsibility in a dignified manner, many of the Democratic Senators are behaving as petulant children, even to the point of interrupting Roberts and then accusing him of giving incomplete answers. Their disrespectful, grandstanding speeches and comments do no justice to the great men who framed our political system.
Many of the “questions” involve citing some 20 year old passage from one of Roberts’ briefs, followed by a 5 minute speech railing against the perceived anti-whatever-is-my-hotbutton-issue contained therein. That speech will then conclude with some sort of question along the lines of “when did you stop beating your wife?” At times, when Roberts gave an answer that did not fit within the pre-determined responses desired by the Senator asking the question, said Senator would then complain that Roberts was being evasive or misleading. This political posturing is patently outside the scope of “advice and consent.”
When someone applies for a job, the only thing that is relevant is his experience with respect to the specific functions that the job will require. Qualification for some specific office under the United States should be no different. It should rest solely on the nominee’s direct, measurable experience in carrying out whatever functions are required in that job. The focus must be on this candidate for this job.
It is clear that when given the chance, both Democrats and Republicans will choose to equate personal beliefs, religion, or comments as a private citizen with fitness for office. What the Senators have failed to understand, however, is that a truly independent judiciary whose sole function is to interpret laws made by the legislature, would, by requirement of the office, have to do so without regard to personal opinion. Whether a justice adheres to stare decisis or not is immaterial as the laws must be interpreted based on the Constitution, not ideology.
The question then of how to provide advice and consent becomes simply a matter of examining a nominee’s previous rulings. It is far less important if a candidate for the Supreme Court personally agrees with some social issue than it is if his rulings were influenced by those opinions. And despite what the Senators think, it is possible to make that determination without resorting to quote mining and questioning a candidate’s personal beliefs and opinions. The simple test is to see if a ruling is consistent with the existing law and the Constitution itself.
Much of the time in the nomination hearings has been taken up with discussion of Roberts’ views on Roe v. Wade and abortion in general. What few of the Senators seem to acknowledge, however, is that Roe did not legalize abortion. Roe upheld a right to privacy, one consequence of which was that it was unconstitutional to ban abortion. The dissenting opinion in Roe was not that abortion was illegal, rather that the law did not violate the right to privacy. This is a subtle but crucial difference, and it is that difference which allows a justice to have a personal belief one way or another on a moral issue while still performing his duty to uphold the law on a legal one.
Any law or ruling on any issue can be similarly examined to see if it is consistent with a right or duty embodied within the Constitution. It’s not rocket science. The Senators need to behave like mature adults and use this opportunity to determine whether or not Roberts is sufficiently qualified to be Chief Justice. It is not time for them to grandstand in the hopes of securing enough votes for re-election next term. It is high time that the voting public demand better service from our elected officials.
posted by exsubdriver at 1:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home