September 18, 2005
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES:
The Case For a 'No' Vote on Roberts (E. J. Dionne Jr., September 17, 2005, Washington Post)
[T]he doubts about Roberts have nothing to do with his good heart. The issue is the power about to be put in his hands and into the hands of President Bush's next appointee -- power both will enjoy for life. The Senate and the public have a right to far more assurance about how Roberts would use that power than they have been given in these hearings. The Senate is under no obligation to give the president or Roberts the benefit of the doubt.If senators simply vote "yes" on Roberts, they will be conceding to the executive branch huge power to control what information the public gets and doesn't get about nominees to life positions. The administration has stubbornly refused to release a share of Roberts's writings as deputy solicitor general. This is a dare to the Senate, and the administration is assuming it will wimp out. A "yes" on Roberts would be a craven abdication of power to the executive branch.
In keeping with Roberts's painstaking evasions, he wouldn't even express a view Thursday as to whether his deputy solicitor general writings should be released. That was the administration's decision to make, he said. "This was not your decision," Schumer replied. "But you carry its burden." Or at least he should.
The only reason to oppose the confirmation of Judge Roberts is that you aren't reconciled to the results of recent American elections and believe the appointment of any conservative to the Court to be illegitimate. There's nothing wrong with the Left feeling that way, but it just serves to marginalize them even further. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 18, 2005 8:57 AM
...they will be conceding to the executive branch huge power to control what information the public gets and doesn't get....
Formerly the droigt de seigneur of the Fifth Estate. It's a usurpation, I tells ya.
No wonder the media's up in arms.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at September 18, 2005 9:32 AME.J. Dionne, the Wrongest Man in Media[tm], rides again!
Posted by: H.D. Miller at September 18, 2005 10:16 AMAs written, his problem isn't with Roberts, but with the fundamental rules of the judicial confirmation process. Just coincidence that he felt moved to write about it now, rather than when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was up.
My Frog is pretty shaky, but isn't it "droit?"
Posted by: Lou Gots at September 18, 2005 10:44 AMI believe it's the president's prerogative to nominate whomever he wants and it's the senate's duty to confirm that nominee. The only possible reason for voting against a nominee would be if he or she were found unqualified. Since Roberts is superbly qualified, there can be reason other than partisan politics to vote against him or anyone else the president nominates, media objections not withstanding.
Posted by: erp at September 18, 2005 10:57 AMOver tha last 50 years or so, the court has deviated from it's assigned role to such an extent that political ideology has replaced judicail temperament, scholorship and precedent as the determining factor in the senate's duty to advise and consent. I would like to ask Mr. Dionne, as an apparant 'living constitutionalist', on what basis are yor views regarding 'evolving social mores' more valid than say, a David Duke? The constitution adresses only basic principles with strict limitations regarding the nature of government and it's relationship to the citizen. Either the words and history of that document have meaning or they do not in which case appointments to the court have a charged importance.It'sl that stands between the citizen and ideologically based social experimentation with the full use of the coercive power. Critics of constutionally based juriprudence, like yourself, need to admit the simple fact that the constitution, as written, will not allow the implementation of the the leftsist progrtam of abstarct equality or economic 'democracy' without the use of creative,court originated legislation which has almost no relationship to the historical reality and reason for the founding of this great country.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at September 18, 2005 1:01 PMEr, not as shaky as mine, Lou....
Posted by: Barry Meislin at September 18, 2005 5:11 PMWhat happened to the liberal's belief in the sacred and inviolable attorney/client privelege? Apparently, it's only for serial killers--not Republicans.
Turning over Robert's executive branch papers to Democrat senators would also be a violation of the separation of powers--but then, they seek a court that will violate that separation regularly.
Posted by: Noel at September 18, 2005 6:06 PMBarry: BTW what is the Fifth Estate?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 19, 2005 12:05 AM
I believe it's a pedant's way of classifying the press/media.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at September 19, 2005 1:50 AMThe press is the Fourth Estate.
Posted by: oj at September 19, 2005 9:07 AMthe 5th Estate is the same as the '6th column'
:)
Posted by: JonofAtlanta at September 19, 2005 2:49 PM