Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Money quote from the 2003 confirmation hearing

"There's no role for advocacy with respect to personal beliefs or views on the part of a judge. The judge is bound to follow the Supreme Court precedent, whether he agrees with it or disagrees with it, and bound to apply the rule of law in cases whether there's applicable Supreme Court precedent or not. Personal views, personal ideology, those have no role to play whatever."


At 7:52 AM, Anonymous Jonathon Schuster said...

While this may hold true in an ideaological world (is that even a real phrase? whatever, i've just precedented it) it doesn't hold true in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is charged with two duties, one that is enumerated, one that has come to light through years of decisions. The former is to interpret the law, and foremost the constitution. The latter being to interpret the law and constitution in such a way that the justices recognize public sentiment as well as the direction in which the country is moving. Supreme Court precident is all well and good, however, there are cases in which the Supreme Court makes errors- See Kelo v. New London if you want a current example, however if you would like a past example maybe Dredd Scott v. Sanford? An answer like this, while noble on the surface, ultimately reveals little about a candidate for the judiciary except his ability to speak in soundbytes.


Post a Comment

<< Home