« CourtBriefs for Day 2: Never Ending or Beginning | Main | Q: Is Roberts Consistent? »
September 14, 2005
Talk to Us, Judge
|
Vikram Amar is professor of law at UC Hastings College of the Law. |
Like Rickey Henderson, Judge Roberts is crouching to keep his strike zone tiny. Ruth Bader Ginsburg did us all a disservice by saying the silly things she did in her hearings about not giving clues or hints, especially since she ended up — as Jed and I and others have pointed out — being much more forthcoming than her stated approach to answering questions would have suggested. (Do as Ruth Bader Ginsburg did, Mr. Roberts, not as she said!)
And I still scratch my head when I try to find coherence in the idea — floated by Ginsburg and seized on by Roberts — that it's OK to talk about past cases the nominee has already talked about outside the Senate, but not OK to talk about cases as to which the nominee has views that have thus far remained unspoken, except perhaps to his friends in various Republican administrations over the years!
I actually thought Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was completely right Monday when he said, effectively: "President Bush advertised a conservative judicial philosophy twice in Presidential elections, and the American people bought it. So if Roberts is conservative, that's democracy in action." I agree, but shouldn't democracy also involve transparency? Shouldn't the administration and the nominee now show the American people what they have purchased? Or are is the Administration afraid that the American people might have buyer's remorse if they see the product in more detail than they have ever before (insofar as most folks never really read the dreadfully tedious Supreme Court decisions themselves)?
My own view is that Roberts should be candid in discussing his likely doctrinal conservatism, he should get an up-down vote on the floor, and he will (should?) get confirmed because the Republicans have, after all, won a few elections.
Posted at September 14, 2005 07:55 AM