Spring Break
Justice for a justice
Roberts should be questioned based on qualifications, not beliefs
By: Adam Scharn
Issue date: 7/28/05 Section: Opinion
In this new age of judicial activism, the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor brings the president an opportunity to reinstitute the doctrine of judicial restraint. Unfortunately, Democrats and those sympathetic to the left are more concerned with the political ideologies of the judges Bush has nominated than their qualifications to interpret the law. The result has been delayed hearings, filibusters and, in many cases, rejected nominees, due to political differences among the nominees and some members of the Senate.
However, the citizens of the United States cannot afford to wait for bipartisan bickering to end over this nomination. The seat to be filled is on the bench of the ultimate leveler of power, the ultimate protector of freedom. The Supreme Court begins its next session on Oct. 3. To fill the bench with its required nine members, partisan filibustering cannot come into play. It is the Senate's duty as the voice of the states to evaluate the qualifications of justice nominee John Roberts in a fair and timely manner. To do so, Roberts' political philosophy must not be considered as a dominant factor. Politics and jurisprudence are not interchangeable philosophies.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., was one of the first to speak out negatively about President Bush's nominee. Kennedy's main concern is "Whose side is he on?" More specifically, Kennedy wants to know whether Roberts is on the side of the environmentalists or the so-called polluters, the consumers or the corporations. Kennedy is concerned with how Roberts stands on issues such as abortion and affirmative action. More broadly put: Is he liberal or conservative?
The relevance of the answers to these questions only extends to judicial activism. Activism refers to a judge who rules on a case based on the politics of the statute in question. In other words, activism is the practice of judges and appellate justices manifesting laws Congress did not pass, and/or striking down laws that contradict a certain political philosophy, incorporating politics into judicial review.
However, the citizens of the United States cannot afford to wait for bipartisan bickering to end over this nomination. The seat to be filled is on the bench of the ultimate leveler of power, the ultimate protector of freedom. The Supreme Court begins its next session on Oct. 3. To fill the bench with its required nine members, partisan filibustering cannot come into play. It is the Senate's duty as the voice of the states to evaluate the qualifications of justice nominee John Roberts in a fair and timely manner. To do so, Roberts' political philosophy must not be considered as a dominant factor. Politics and jurisprudence are not interchangeable philosophies.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., was one of the first to speak out negatively about President Bush's nominee. Kennedy's main concern is "Whose side is he on?" More specifically, Kennedy wants to know whether Roberts is on the side of the environmentalists or the so-called polluters, the consumers or the corporations. Kennedy is concerned with how Roberts stands on issues such as abortion and affirmative action. More broadly put: Is he liberal or conservative?
The relevance of the answers to these questions only extends to judicial activism. Activism refers to a judge who rules on a case based on the politics of the statute in question. In other words, activism is the practice of judges and appellate justices manifesting laws Congress did not pass, and/or striking down laws that contradict a certain political philosophy, incorporating politics into judicial review.
Be sure to include your name, major, and class year. Submissions without this information are subject to deletion.
By submitting a comment, you agree to thebatt.com's Terms of Use.
You may also send a Mail Call to The Battalion at mailcall@thebatt.com