|
|
|
Today’s News & Views
Masterful,
Eloquent, Sincere "If people can't vote for you [Judge John Roberts], then I doubt they can vote for any Republican nominee." Sen. Orrin Hatch "Roberts's performance so far has been so masterful, so disarming that the political left has foundered in its effort to tag him as some sort of scary extremist. The vast mushy middle seems accepting and the right is still thrilled.' The Washington Post's Terry Neal The upside of waiting until the Senate Judiciary Committee finishes for the day is huge: everything's been said and you don't risk missing a pivotal exchange. The downside is that it's so late by the time you start typing away, you have to make very general statements to get the edition posted. Global Generalization [GG] Number One: If just about everyone thought Judge John Roberts was scary bright yesterday, the only conclusion they could come to after today is, "I underestimated him." Watching Judge Roberts patiently wait while the likes of pro-abortion Senators Kennedy and Biden go on and on and on--awash in meandering, mean spirited, and often deeply misleading observations-is like observing a parent waiting patiently for her child to stop holding his breath. GG Number Two. Judge Roberts is in love with the law. However someone might think he may act as a Chief Justice, it's impossible to miss that Judge Roberts is passionate about the "rule of law," the absence of which, he believes with all his heart, puts all other rights in jeopardy. GG Number Three. Having been unable to pry commitments out of Judge Roberts how he would vote on certain issue, if confirmed, several of the pro-abortion Democrats said, in effect, let's pretend. Let's pretend we are not on national television. Let's pretend this is NOT a judicial hearing about your nomination to be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Let's pretend that how you FEEL about something is the most important consideration in deciding a case. (What does your "heart tell you," don't be an "automaton.") In other words, let's pretend this is an Oprah moment. Roberts, "with respect," said no way, nada, nyet. The gist of so many of his answers was that it's not about how I feel, Senator. Nor is it about "progress" or "doing good." Nor is it about how I look at something in my role as a father or a husband. When Senators ask for answers to "abstract" question, he said, it misses that his role as a JUSTICE is not to emote but to read and evaluate the facts and arguments to determine how they comport with the law and the Constitution. To the insistent question, what is the role of the judiciary is advancing causes?, Judge Roberts made the same point repeatedly. There are always two (or more sides); that what is to one person obviously "progress" is not to someone else; and, most important, that weighing competing goods is the role of the legislative branch, not the judiciary. GG Number Four. Senators Schumer and Biden and Kennedy and Durbin were/are aching to tag Judge Roberts with various labels: insensitivity to [fill in the blank] is at the top. (They're still struggling to paint him as "outside the mainstream," but that hope is waning.) None of it stuck. There is another shorter go-round tomorrow, after which various panels of experts will testify about Judge Roberts' nomination. Please send any comments to Dandrusko@nrlc.org |
|