![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I certainly haven't been hanging on every word in the John Roberts confirmation hearings, but listening to the live proceedings while driving and MPR summaries in the evening. And I think he sounds like an excellent choice for Chief Justice. Not just the best of a bad lot, or the best we can hope for under the *Bush* circumstances, but a genuinely good choice.
He has made it perfectly clear that he considers it inappropriate for a Court nominee to answer "how would you rule?" type questions on issues that are likely to come before the Court in the forseeable future, and he has explained why: (1) it raises the temptation to "bargain" with the Senate - in effect promising to rule a certain way in return for a confirmation vote, and (2) if justices were presumed to know in advance how they were going to rule on important issues, there would be no point in hearing arguments. I agree with him on both points. Hell, I wanted to applaud when I heard him make the second one (in a tone that was polite, not condescending but just a little tired, as if he still had hope that he would be able to explain it clearly enough this time so that the concept would get through, but he didn't entirely expect it to). I doubt I would be able to continue to be as civil and good-humored as Roberts has been when the Senators persist in asking him over and over again how he would rule on "Roe v. Wade," and then accusing him of being a weasel for declining to answer.
Mostly I like him because he clearly believes that decisions should be made rationally, thoughtfully, and only after gathering all the relevant information. He appears to be a little baffled by Senators who keep asking, in various different ways, "But how do you FEEL about that issue?" How many times does he have to say that he doesn't believe judicial decisions should be based on the judge's personal feelings? And that he does not make his rulings that way? Why is that so hard for some people to accept?
Incidentally, he answered the "right to privacy" question very straightforwardly. More than once, obviously, since I heard the question couched in two different ways by two different questioners in the short pieces of testimony I listened to. Yes, he agrees with the majority ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut. Yes, he believes that the Constitution supports an implicit right to privacy. And no, he is not going to answer questions on how he would rule on a challenge to Roe v. Wade.
He has made it perfectly clear that he considers it inappropriate for a Court nominee to answer "how would you rule?" type questions on issues that are likely to come before the Court in the forseeable future, and he has explained why: (1) it raises the temptation to "bargain" with the Senate - in effect promising to rule a certain way in return for a confirmation vote, and (2) if justices were presumed to know in advance how they were going to rule on important issues, there would be no point in hearing arguments. I agree with him on both points. Hell, I wanted to applaud when I heard him make the second one (in a tone that was polite, not condescending but just a little tired, as if he still had hope that he would be able to explain it clearly enough this time so that the concept would get through, but he didn't entirely expect it to). I doubt I would be able to continue to be as civil and good-humored as Roberts has been when the Senators persist in asking him over and over again how he would rule on "Roe v. Wade," and then accusing him of being a weasel for declining to answer.
Mostly I like him because he clearly believes that decisions should be made rationally, thoughtfully, and only after gathering all the relevant information. He appears to be a little baffled by Senators who keep asking, in various different ways, "But how do you FEEL about that issue?" How many times does he have to say that he doesn't believe judicial decisions should be based on the judge's personal feelings? And that he does not make his rulings that way? Why is that so hard for some people to accept?
Incidentally, he answered the "right to privacy" question very straightforwardly. More than once, obviously, since I heard the question couched in two different ways by two different questioners in the short pieces of testimony I listened to. Yes, he agrees with the majority ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut. Yes, he believes that the Constitution supports an implicit right to privacy. And no, he is not going to answer questions on how he would rule on a challenge to Roe v. Wade.
