Comments on: 25 Dems For John Roberts, Chief Justice

By: debsay

debsay — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:54:13 +0000

I agree that most important is whether the nominee is qualified, are his rulings based upon facts presented to the court? etc.

As for digging into his political views… He should answer the same questions that were put forth to all Supreme Court Nominees, nothing more and nothing less.

By: Meredith

Meredith — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 18:41:18 +0000

I’ve made this comment already in a different post, but I’ll say it again. Regardless of his politics, I think we need to go back to the question of qualification. Is he smart enough? Yes. Is he experienced enough as a jurist? Maybe to be on the Supreme Court, but you don’t just waltz into a Chief Justice position, even if you have been a judge in other courts. Does he have the admin experience? Let’s not assume that it’s not a stretch. I really don’t think people understand what is involved in being the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And, it’s not just the list of “duties” you can read about in the news. This position is a big deal, and the only way to truly understand why, one needs knowledge of the history of the Supreme Court and its Chief Justices.

The Chief Justice plays the most important role in guiding the other judges to make opinions comrehensive and precedentially valuable. Many experienced Chief Justices have been criticized for their lack of leadership in the position (even Rehnquist, but most notably Warren). In addition, the Chief Justice, if he is in the majority, will author much of each opinion that is handed down. Has anyone really looked at the specifics to see if he is qualified to lead the highest court in the nation?

I’m not saying he can’t do it, but I am saying that it would be safer and would make much more sense to install one of the other Supreme Court justices into the Chief Justice position. Unfortunately, people will not understand the gravity of this mistake (if it is one) until Roberts has held this position for years.

And, I’m sorry, but I just have lost faith in this administration’s appointment decisions.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:05:28 +0000

Checks and balances should extend to everybody. If that means we dig into what Roberts may do in the future, given this new appointment, then so be it. The framers were wise, but systems and methods need to evolve and thankfully ours recognize when more scrutiny is needed.

In anye event, I’m sure Roberts will pass the test, but he should be definitely be questioned further.

By: Mark L

Mark L — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:45:53 +0000

The main questions should be: 1) is he qualified as a jurist? Everyone agrees this is a yes – he definitely has the intellect to do the job. 2) is he qualified as an administrator? That’s less certain from the media coverage, but he’s been in several large judicial offices already, so I don’t think it will be a stretch.

The remaining questions are political – which is something that the Court is supposed to be isolated from.

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

The Senate is not supposed by the Constitution to be acquainted with the concerns of the Executive department. It was not intended that these should be communicated to them; nor can they therefore be qualified to judge of the necessity which calls for a mission to any particular place, or of the particular grade, more or less marked, which special and secret circumstances may call for. All this is left to the President. They are only to see that no unfit person be employed.

It may be objected that the Senate may, by continual negatives on the person, do what amounts to a negative on the grade; and so indirectly defeat this right of the President. But this would be a breach of trust, an abuse of the power confided to the Senate, of which that body cannot be supposed capable.