Roberts will be centrist when Hell freezes over
I did some more reading on John Roberts and his judicial record. The media encourage us to consider him unpredictable because his record is so limited, but as far as I can tell, the one consistent thread in this limited record is "in support of Justice Scalia's opinion." In some cases, he seems even more conservative (ie, hateful) than Scalia. Meaning, basically, that Roberts will adhere to the ideology of the primacy of federal power in all matters...in all matters except those defending the environment or desegregation, in which case laissez-faire is okay.
There were some decisions I could reluctantly agree with, but that's because I happen to be a little bit moderate (depending on whom I'm standing next to). These include his ruling that religious groups can meet on school grounds without violating the Establishment Clause, and (maybe; pending on further details) his ruling limiting a prisoner's right to sue (sorry). To his credit, Roberts also once ruled in favor of a man suing because of discrimination against his disability...but this case seems to have had more to do with federal authority than anti-discrimination.
As for his upholding Roe v. Wade? Ha! Not a chance in hell. He once supported a vigilante group that used violence to stop women from entering family planning clinics, oh for crying out loud. "We continue to hold that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled... The Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion...finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution." That would be a direct quote.
If you need to evaluate for yourself the precise left-bias of my source, here's the url:
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf
There were some decisions I could reluctantly agree with, but that's because I happen to be a little bit moderate (depending on whom I'm standing next to). These include his ruling that religious groups can meet on school grounds without violating the Establishment Clause, and (maybe; pending on further details) his ruling limiting a prisoner's right to sue (sorry). To his credit, Roberts also once ruled in favor of a man suing because of discrimination against his disability...but this case seems to have had more to do with federal authority than anti-discrimination.
As for his upholding Roe v. Wade? Ha! Not a chance in hell. He once supported a vigilante group that used violence to stop women from entering family planning clinics, oh for crying out loud. "We continue to hold that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled... The Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion...finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution." That would be a direct quote.
If you need to evaluate for yourself the precise left-bias of my source, here's the url:
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf
posted by Rex at 1:57 AM
2 Comments:
You wrote:
In some cases, he seems even more conservative (ie, hateful) than Scalia. Meaning, basically, that Roberts will adhere to the ideology of the primacy of federal power in all matters...in all matters except those defending the environment or desegregation, in which case laissez-faire is okay.
Actually, the Scalia-Rehnquist-Thomas branch of the court are all about state's rights, rather than federal jurisdiction. This is both in terms of legislative and judicial authority. For instance, Scalia's whole problem with Roe vs. Wade is that he feels it made a decision that was not one of constitutionality, and that therefore the legislatures (primarily the State legislatures), and not the federal courts, should decide.
I personally don't know what to think about the Federal vs. State issue, because I'm not well-versed in legal philosophy. But I think one thing that is important to remember in all this is, judicial conservatism and legislative conservatism are related but are not literally the same thing. That is, a certain method of interpreting the constitution may be narrower and more textually-based (and thus more conservative) as opposed to more pragmatic and fluid (i.e. more liberal), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the intepreter is doing so because he or she wants the Republicans' legislation to win, but because they truly believe the constitution should be interpreted more from an originalist standpoint. Right or wrong, I don't really know, but I think we should at least think about judges in a different manner from how we think about politicians, since their respective responsibilities are related but distinct.
One thing that I've thought a lot recently is this: maybe some of these conservative judges, who end up ruling in ways that I find disheartening, are doing so with sound legal reasoning. I may not be happy with the outcome of their decisions, but then again, it is their job to interpret law that has already been made. So even if from a political standpoint I think that a prisoner (for instance) should have a certain right that a judge denies them, maybe that judge has really made a correct, or at least a valid, decision from a legal standpoint.
Now, this is not to say that all legal philosophies are "correct", or that a strict interpretationist standpoint is particularly correct either. Nor is it necessarily a defense of Roberts. For instance, I read about how, in his tenure in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration, he proposed the idea that congress could outstrip the judicial system of enforcing de-segregation, which genuinely is an issue that is in the hands of the court (as established by many decision by the Warren Court). Clearly, Roberts was (at least in those days) working to subjugate legal reasoning to ideologly, which is exactly what I'm arguing against. What I *am* defending, however, is the idea that a judge can serve up a decision that isn't very appetizing to me, or you, from a political perspective, that may nonetheless be a valid interpretation of the law as it is, rather than what you or I would like it to be.
The abortion issue is, of course, the explosive case, and I think that Democrats like you and me should at least consider the possibility that, well, maybe it is an issue that would be be more legally sound were it to be handled by legislators. I mean, it's almost impossible to debate the abortion issue, because everyone's minds are made up. But, just as I think the pro-life people need to consider, from a pragmatic standpoint, just how much of a problem it would be to completely outlaw abortion, pro-choice people should consider the possibility that abortion may not be an issue of constitutionality, but of legislation. If the whole "litmus test" of abortion were to be removed from the judiciary, I get the sense that a much higher level of debate could be reached regarding court appointments.
Of course, as it stands now, basically everyone who thinks abortion should be legal thinks the constitution provides for that, whereas everyone who thinks it shouldn't be illegal thinks the constitution *doesn't* provide for that. So maybe it's an issue that simply cannot be seen first legally, and second ideologically. But I think it's an issue that could, if only for the sake of argument, be worth seeing from a different perspective by all parties involved.
A man can judge according to his conscience and still be hateful.
Post a Comment
<< Home