Batting Practice: Judge Roberts, Day Three
It was inevitable. Thomas and I saw this coming from day one. Judge Roberts is sitting in a batting cage with the speed of the pitches around 30 m.p.h., and he is parking the ball every time he connects. This, of course, was to be expected. Thomas was right last night when he called for a referee to stop the fight before the Democrats got hurt. Now, they are beaten, bloody, and bleary-eyed, and they have yet top realize they were in over their heads before this committee convened.
Batting practice is one to look at this, but make no mistake, the Democrats have given going after Roberts "the old college try." It’s too bad that couldn’t "win one for the Gipper." Yes, even Biden—in all his grandeur—couldn’t ensure a defeat of Roberts today, and believe me, he did try. He referred to the hearings as a "kabuki dance," with Roberts dancing around issues, and refusing to answer. Biden also chastised Roberts for his seemingly constant invocation of Canon 5, or the Ginsburg Rule. He even went so far as to enter into the committee’s record the amount of times Justices O’Connor and Ginsburg were asked direct questions, and provided direct answers. Irrelevant, Senator. Their answers are what counts, not the amount of questions asked and answered.
This just goes to prove the constant desperation of the Left. Sen. Biden believes that because Judge Roberts refuses to reveal his thoughts on certain issues that he is hiding something. Not true. The Ginsburg Rule protects legal professionals from impugning themselves, and blowing their impartiality. To question him regarding his thoughts on this case, or that case, destroys the idea that he is impartial. It does not matter if Judge Roberts does not inject his personal beliefs into a decision. The person before him will think that he will, and he could be forced to recuse himself from a particular case.
All of the Democrats received a taste of that yesterday, from Kennedy on down the line. The Democrats want answers to questions that are near and dear to them and their special interest cronies. None of them can deny that. No one can tell me that Feinstein isn’t beholden to her women’s rights groups, just like Kennedy can’t deny his ties to labor unions. The Democrats are doing their best to show that he is hostile towards their constituents, or they’re looking for a hint that he might actually be a judicial activist, of sorts. The problem with that thinking is that is shows they didn’t do their research. EVERY memo, paper, or decision he has rendered has been within the confines of the Constitution—either through its direct interpretation, or by precedents set by previous cases.
Stare decisis was a concept that Judge Roberts stuck close to yesterday, and on more than a few occasions did he invoke it today. He is a lawyer and a judge. The law is his ultimate authority, and he is an arbiter of it. He understands that jurists do not make up the law. That power lies in the purview of the legislative branch—regardless of it being the state or the federal legislature. WE, as a populace, may wholly disagree with the decision of Roe, however it is the law of the land. Personally, I side with many a originalist jurists—Thomas being an amateur one, and included—that Roe was decided incorrectly. That it stretched the boundaries of judicial interpretation.
Another concept that was called into question today that I thought Roberts handled quite well, was the question of the injection of foreign law into high court decisions. The question originated with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK. Roberts handled this question quite well, and even brought up hat the Constitution dictates that a jurist is to rely on the laws of the land, and the Constitution. He shall have no judicial masters beyond that. Coburn also brought up another point, which was most interesting. He asked Roberts about the difference between life and death; more accurately, that if death is considered the cessation of heart and brain activity, then life must be defined by the presence of them.
This was a set-up. Not so much to see if Judge Roberts would step into a trap, but possibly to give Judge Roberts an opening, or a hint, as to how to handle the idea of abortion. He was certainly going in that direction. Both Thomas and I picked up on it from the initial question regarding whether or not Judge Roberts agreed with his provisions. Cautiously, and even after a laugh by the gallery, Judge Roberts agreed to the information provided by Sen. Coburn.
Much of what we’ve seen over the last three days is reprehensible on the part of the Democrats. They have attacked him. They have accused him. The have drawn conclusions based on his answers, and many of them are wrong. Neither Marcie or I are lawyers. We have never hidden this fact. We are amateur analysts that have a pair of the best legal minds that people have seen without the formal education. Not bad. It shows what reading and research can give someone. But many on the committee—especially the Democrats—are lawyers, and yet they simply act as though they have no idea what they’re talking about. I chalk this up to the fact they have served too long in the ahlls of power, and have not kept their skills—trained ones, mind you—honed to razor-perfection.
Had they done so, their turns with Judge Roberts would not have sounded so unhinged, so jealous, so bitter when they questioned him. The accusations and assumptions could be accepted had these people really allowed him to answer their questions. Not the direct ones regarding cases. On an ethics basis, the man cannot answer those. But on a variety of other issues, he could. The Democrats really have no one to blame for the answers they received. It is the very judicial activism they purport to abhor that spawned so much of what Judge Roberts was unable to address.
When the courts have already seen the issue come to their doors, watched it be appealed, and ultimately end up in the halls of the Supreme Court, they can ask if he feels it is settled law. They have, and he has answered that as it stands now, yes, it is. However, they persist in demanding specific answers from specific cases. This he can’t answer. Ask him about Roe?Are you nuts? An abortion case is already on the court’s docket for the next session. Ask him about Kelo? A case in Arizona right now may end up being appealed to them over eminent domain. And requesting a decision regarding the current war is just plain asinine. Roberts has already "ruled" on that in Hamdan, which just finished being dealt with in the DC Court of Appeals.
The Democrats have been shown for what they are in these hearingsa. They are not just a party out of power, desperate for a return tour. They are not just simply unhinged as they continue their meltdown in front of the American people. In the end, their party must come to grips with one, simple fact. That is, of course, that they have no clue, and are completely out of the mainstream. They have shown it, consistently, for three days now against a man who is more than qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. And not because he is a conservative. It is because he is a textualist, has a firm grasp of the interpretation of the Constitution, and will not engage in the blatant judicial activism that had led us down this dark road.
The Bunny ;) & Publius II
It was inevitable. Thomas and I saw this coming from day one. Judge Roberts is sitting in a batting cage with the speed of the pitches around 30 m.p.h., and he is parking the ball every time he connects. This, of course, was to be expected. Thomas was right last night when he called for a referee to stop the fight before the Democrats got hurt. Now, they are beaten, bloody, and bleary-eyed, and they have yet top realize they were in over their heads before this committee convened.
Batting practice is one to look at this, but make no mistake, the Democrats have given going after Roberts "the old college try." It’s too bad that couldn’t "win one for the Gipper." Yes, even Biden—in all his grandeur—couldn’t ensure a defeat of Roberts today, and believe me, he did try. He referred to the hearings as a "kabuki dance," with Roberts dancing around issues, and refusing to answer. Biden also chastised Roberts for his seemingly constant invocation of Canon 5, or the Ginsburg Rule. He even went so far as to enter into the committee’s record the amount of times Justices O’Connor and Ginsburg were asked direct questions, and provided direct answers. Irrelevant, Senator. Their answers are what counts, not the amount of questions asked and answered.
This just goes to prove the constant desperation of the Left. Sen. Biden believes that because Judge Roberts refuses to reveal his thoughts on certain issues that he is hiding something. Not true. The Ginsburg Rule protects legal professionals from impugning themselves, and blowing their impartiality. To question him regarding his thoughts on this case, or that case, destroys the idea that he is impartial. It does not matter if Judge Roberts does not inject his personal beliefs into a decision. The person before him will think that he will, and he could be forced to recuse himself from a particular case.
All of the Democrats received a taste of that yesterday, from Kennedy on down the line. The Democrats want answers to questions that are near and dear to them and their special interest cronies. None of them can deny that. No one can tell me that Feinstein isn’t beholden to her women’s rights groups, just like Kennedy can’t deny his ties to labor unions. The Democrats are doing their best to show that he is hostile towards their constituents, or they’re looking for a hint that he might actually be a judicial activist, of sorts. The problem with that thinking is that is shows they didn’t do their research. EVERY memo, paper, or decision he has rendered has been within the confines of the Constitution—either through its direct interpretation, or by precedents set by previous cases.
Stare decisis was a concept that Judge Roberts stuck close to yesterday, and on more than a few occasions did he invoke it today. He is a lawyer and a judge. The law is his ultimate authority, and he is an arbiter of it. He understands that jurists do not make up the law. That power lies in the purview of the legislative branch—regardless of it being the state or the federal legislature. WE, as a populace, may wholly disagree with the decision of Roe, however it is the law of the land. Personally, I side with many a originalist jurists—Thomas being an amateur one, and included—that Roe was decided incorrectly. That it stretched the boundaries of judicial interpretation.
Another concept that was called into question today that I thought Roberts handled quite well, was the question of the injection of foreign law into high court decisions. The question originated with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK. Roberts handled this question quite well, and even brought up hat the Constitution dictates that a jurist is to rely on the laws of the land, and the Constitution. He shall have no judicial masters beyond that. Coburn also brought up another point, which was most interesting. He asked Roberts about the difference between life and death; more accurately, that if death is considered the cessation of heart and brain activity, then life must be defined by the presence of them.
This was a set-up. Not so much to see if Judge Roberts would step into a trap, but possibly to give Judge Roberts an opening, or a hint, as to how to handle the idea of abortion. He was certainly going in that direction. Both Thomas and I picked up on it from the initial question regarding whether or not Judge Roberts agreed with his provisions. Cautiously, and even after a laugh by the gallery, Judge Roberts agreed to the information provided by Sen. Coburn.
Much of what we’ve seen over the last three days is reprehensible on the part of the Democrats. They have attacked him. They have accused him. The have drawn conclusions based on his answers, and many of them are wrong. Neither Marcie or I are lawyers. We have never hidden this fact. We are amateur analysts that have a pair of the best legal minds that people have seen without the formal education. Not bad. It shows what reading and research can give someone. But many on the committee—especially the Democrats—are lawyers, and yet they simply act as though they have no idea what they’re talking about. I chalk this up to the fact they have served too long in the ahlls of power, and have not kept their skills—trained ones, mind you—honed to razor-perfection.
Had they done so, their turns with Judge Roberts would not have sounded so unhinged, so jealous, so bitter when they questioned him. The accusations and assumptions could be accepted had these people really allowed him to answer their questions. Not the direct ones regarding cases. On an ethics basis, the man cannot answer those. But on a variety of other issues, he could. The Democrats really have no one to blame for the answers they received. It is the very judicial activism they purport to abhor that spawned so much of what Judge Roberts was unable to address.
When the courts have already seen the issue come to their doors, watched it be appealed, and ultimately end up in the halls of the Supreme Court, they can ask if he feels it is settled law. They have, and he has answered that as it stands now, yes, it is. However, they persist in demanding specific answers from specific cases. This he can’t answer. Ask him about Roe?Are you nuts? An abortion case is already on the court’s docket for the next session. Ask him about Kelo? A case in Arizona right now may end up being appealed to them over eminent domain. And requesting a decision regarding the current war is just plain asinine. Roberts has already "ruled" on that in Hamdan, which just finished being dealt with in the DC Court of Appeals.
The Democrats have been shown for what they are in these hearingsa. They are not just a party out of power, desperate for a return tour. They are not just simply unhinged as they continue their meltdown in front of the American people. In the end, their party must come to grips with one, simple fact. That is, of course, that they have no clue, and are completely out of the mainstream. They have shown it, consistently, for three days now against a man who is more than qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. And not because he is a conservative. It is because he is a textualist, has a firm grasp of the interpretation of the Constitution, and will not engage in the blatant judicial activism that had led us down this dark road.
The Bunny ;) & Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home