I think you make a good point about Roberts - that just because the partisan atmosphere is so polarized and that he's nominated by one of the most hidebound administrations in history shouldn't automatically sink his appointment.
The media would never assist you in coming to that conclusion, though, since they like to cover things like Senator Biden's characterization of the hearing: "a Kabuki dance." That was public radio, which managed to convince me that Roberts is being made to jump through a lot of hoops without a whole lot of substance.
However, while I do agree that he shouldn't have to say what his personal views are on abortion, removing life support, or other issues that frankly will come before the Court, it doesn't mean he doesn't have to share anything.
I've been told that in addition to sidestepping (rightfully so) some of the personal questions, Judge Roberts also refuses to discuss why he arrived at certain decisions in previous cases. I don't see why discussing that should be a problem for him. As he has stated, he intends to decide cases "in light of the court's precedents, with an open mind. I will not take to the court whatever personal views I have on the issues...[my perspectives] will be based on my understanding of the law."
It may be that a politician has no real concept of what "understanding of the law" is about and hence, they fall back on perspectives on current political issues. But I sense that Roberts just doesn't want anyone to find out he may be of the same school as Clarence Thomas, who doesn't believe in stare decisis (that courts should follow precedent).
No comments:
Post a Comment