« Alternative News Sources | Main | Constitution Day »
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Nominee John G. Roberts
I
n virtually every photo-op, Judge John G. Roberts displays his trademark compressed-lip smile. I can't decide whether his lips have been buttoned, zipped, or sealed, but it doesn't much matter. Roberts may seem to be the All-American boy, but what really lurks behind that smiling exterior?
H
e is smooth, urbane, polished, extremely verbal - and, I suspect, extremely well coached. The only thing Roberts seems willing to reveal to us is an impressive knowledge of - and unflinching reverence for - the law. Of course, that's commendable, but what ought to interest us more is how he'll respond in those instances when justice and the law are at odds.
W
hen the law reveals itself to be an ass, and our elected politicians are too craven to challenge it, we rely on the judiciary to step up and honor justice. Those are the moments that define our progress as a civil society.
T
he nominee's metaphor of his role on the Supreme Court as an "umpire" (Sept. 13) is totally misplaced. Essentially, it is deceptive reframing for a public that doesn't understand our unique government system. Umpires are people who make calls, not decisions.
I
magine the Supreme Court of the 1950s as a mere umpire on the issue of segregation for Brown v. the Board of Education. The justices insightfully interpreted the Constitution to reveal that "separate but equal" does not offer equal protection under the law to all citizens, in conflict with the 14th Amendment, despite public opinion that would have voted for segregation.
A
ll this nonsense about the courts being too activist - which Roberts is trying to avoid - conveniently ignores that the court is established to protect against tyranny of the majority. We don't need an "umpire" on the court.
W
e, the people, need an impartial justice who will serve all the people, not just those who have paid to sit in the stadium.
Posted by fm on September 17, 2005 at 12:11 AM