Yeah, Right, Whatever

There's been a lot said already about Judge Roberts and his upcoming Senate confirmation hearings. Is he too conservative? Will he be an "activist" judge? Will he let his religion get in the way of "objective decisions"?

Senator Teddy Kennedy recently said that Judge Roberts' wife should be off limits in the hearing (bully for him). But, he also said this:

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts "will be expected to answer fully" any questions about his views on controversial issues that could come before the court in the future.

Now, Senator Kennedy has been in the Senate... a while. I'm sure (not) that he remembers the confirmation hearings of Justice Ginsberg, where she refused to answer any questions about how she might vote in the future. Hmmm... and maybe he's forgotten what he said when Justice Marshall was going through his confirmation hearings:

"We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court," Kennedy said during a 1967 press conference. "This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent."

So, Senator, which one is it? Should he be expected to answer those questions, or not? Personally, I'd vote "not", but I don't get a say.

Senator Kennedy isn't the only Senator getting bent out of shape and confused by the whole confirmation process.

In an interview broadcast Tuesday on Vermont Public Radio's "Switchboard" program, Leahy said he would vote against the appeals court judge if it seemed as if he would pursue an activist agenda on the court.

First off, the President said that he was going to choose a nominee that would not legislate from the bench. That's appears to be the tendency of more liberal judges, anyway. But wait... there's more...

"They've knocked down all these, basically writing the law themselves," Leahy added. "I want to find out if he's going to be as active as this — as people like Justice (Antonin) Scalia and Justice (Clarence) Thomas, who have almost willy-nilly overruled things."

You know, Senator, I guess you would think that Justices Thomas and Scalia overruled things willy-nilly. That comes from never actually studying the Constitution. That's their job, Senator- to determine whether law is Constitutional or not, based only on the Constitution. Not on international law, or what feels good, or the way they think it "should be." If that's your definition of "willy-nilly", then I'm fine with that.

Leahy also said any Supreme Court nominee who doesn't agree that Roe v. Wade is established legal precedent would have difficulty getting confirmed.

"Just as you would not have a justice nominee who said, ‘Well I wouldn't consider Brown vs. Board of Education settled law,' I don't see how they could get confirmed," Leahy said. "I don't see how somebody who said that they didn't consider Roe vs. Wade settled law ... I don't see how they get confirmed."

So... Dredd Scott is settled law, right, Senator? Just checking... And, by the way... Attorney General Gonzales isn't so sure about that whole "settled law" thing, anyway...

The Senate should be concerned about his judicial philosophy, not his views on any one topic. His judicial philosophy is simple- he's an originalist who has little patience for judicial activism. Any more questions?