The U.S. Senate will soon be holding confirmation hearings for Prsident Bush’ nominee to the Supreme Court, John Roberts.
Many liberal advocates are now demanding confidential files and privileged attorney-client materials on Judge Roberts.
The Constitution gives the President the power to “nominate,and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint… Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for.”
Traditionally, Presidents were given broad latitude in making judicial appointments. Many Presidents were expected, even encouraged, to make nominations with judicial philosopies that mirrored their own. So long as nominees were qualified and people of moral integrity, they were nearly always confirmed.
This tradition continued until even the last nominee, the Clinton-appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ginsburg was and is a liberal judge with a wide-known written history of advocacy for the left. Prior to becoming a judge, Ginsburg was a lawyer for the ACLU. (Can you imagine the uproar over a nominee who worked for the ACLJ, The National Right to Life, or Focus on the Family?).
During her confirmation hearings, Ginsburg often refused to answer questions that dealt with issues that would or might go before the court. Conservatives and liberals alike continued to allow her this leeway, citing her need to be “unbiased” if these cases or issues came before the court.
Despite her very liberal views, conservatives and liberals, overwhelmingly confirmed Ginsburg with a vote of 96-3.
Yet, today, with a more conservative nominee before the court, the rules appear to have changed.
Edward Kennedy, in writin an article Friday in “The Washington Post” said, “No one has an automatic right to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court. A nominee to the high court must first demonstrate that he has a core commitment to constitutional rights and liberties. He must show that he is in the mainstream of modern judicial thought and that he would not use an ideologically motivated interpretation of our Constitution or laws to reverse the hard-fought gains we have made to make this nation more just.”
What does Kennedy mean by “core commitment to constitutional rights and liberties”? What does he mean that they must be “in the mainstream of modern judicial thought” or “not use an ideologically motivated interpretation of our Constitution”?
It appears that what was good for Ginsburg no longer applies. Kennedy argues that Roberts should release 1000’s of pages of confidential documents as well as many papers protected by attorney-client privilege.
I profoundly disagreewith Mr. Kennedy. But what is a fair issue to bring up? Should there be litmus tests for nominees? What would you look for in an appointment to our highest court?
I’m no scholar on the Constitution nor on the Supreme Court. However, I would expect a Judge to know and understand what the Constitution says and hold up laws to see if they are aligned with it. If that means we need a “Constitutionalist” then so be it.
Forgive me for asking a lame question: What “liberties” are we granted in the Constitution?
Read: abortion and affirmative action.
Slug:
I believe that would make you a contructionist- one who believe that the original intent (and words)of the Constitution still carries much weight. Constructionists do not believe in legislating from the bench-but rather strictly interpret the Constitution for what it actually says-not what they might like for it to say.
Jeffrey:
abortion, affirmative action, and any other cause that can be legislated from the bench. (typically, these are “rights” that would never pass legislatively)
(From research I did on Roberts a while back.)
Thanks, Jeffrey. Excellent information. Like you, I would certainly prefer a nominee that is clearly a strict constructionist and social conservative.
Hopefully this won’t be another Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork fiasco with the left foaming at the mouth.
All we can do now is pray for our leaders and discuss the issues like we are doing here.
I agree that I do not want another fiasco as well. But at least Clarence Thomas was confirmed and how been a staunch defender of the constructionist viewpoint.
Bork would have been an outstanding Supreme Court justice who would interpret the Constitution in light of what it actually says rather than what he wanted or hoped that it said.
Afte r he was defeated, Anthiny Kennedy ultimately took his place and has been a real disappointment to most conservatives.
Bush promised to nominate people like him, Scalia, or Rehnquist. I pray that Roberts is that kind of jurist and that he will be confirmed.
Thanks for your comments.
What do you think now that the Chief Justice has passed away?
I am saddened by the fact that we make Constitutional laws the absolute standard of conduct in our nation. We take for granted that laws must be interpreted, and the Church is slient on this point because we are just as guilty. Unfortunately, laws are being interpreted in a postmodern, relativisitc mindset that reflects the moral commitments of fallible men. The laws, as well as those who interpret themflect submission to those things that are clear in Word of God. If we will repent and get back to the fact that our laws should be derived from scripture, then who knows, maybe God will bless us.