Issue date: 7/28/05 Section: Opinion

Every question Kennedy intends to find an answer to concerns some aspect of political thought. Kennedy assumes that a conservative justice will discriminate against certain groups whose views on the political matters at hand differ from his own. This is not - and should not be - a criterion commonly found in a federal judge. The courts do not discriminate against any group or individual, on any level. Politicians have the luxury of favoring one group over another, based on which group will give them a better probability of winning. Federal judges and justices do not have this luxury. The sole reason members of the federal judicial branch are appointed, rather than elected by the public, is to keep politics completely separated from jurisprudence. This was the framers' intention. To continue this filibustering simply because of political differences between some members of the Senate and the president would not fall in line with this separation of philosophies.

Since the establishment of judicial review, the Supreme Court has held in numerous rulings that its role is not to decide whether laws are politically sound. Instead, the role of the courts is to determine whether the means used to create such laws are within the scope of Congress' constitutionally granted powers, and whether these laws infringe the civil rights and liberties of the public. The simple translation of this holding is that the judicial branch should stay out of the political arena. This is the Court's interpretation of the section of the Constitution regarding appointment of federal justices.

When the Senate conducts its hearings on Roberts, the only issues that should come into play are the justice's ability to interpret the law fairly and accurately. Asking questions of whether the nominee is more sympathetic to environmentalists or industrialists will not help the Senate determine whether Roberts is fully qualified to review the law. What must be reviewed is his record in the legal field. The questions to be asked should deal with his record as an appellate attorney and as a federal appellate justice. The Senate needs to be more concerned with Roberts' legal reasoning to argue/rule certain cases, rather than his personal political philosophy. Furthermore, this must be done without the typical delays common to so many of Bush's nominees over the last four years. Filibustering has gotten so bad because of partisan differences that some senators are requesting the removal of the rule that grants it. This is not the time to have a political feud in the Senate.

< prev Page 2 of 2

Article Tools