Tell us your values judge, and respect for the law doesn't count
If you don't think it's been a tough three days for the Senate Democrats, read this report from the San Francisco Chronicle. Here's the deal:
Democrats readily concede that Roberts. . .is a formidable intellect with an impressive command of the law. For his part, Roberts has portrayed himself as a careful, fair lawyer, eschewing any ideology but “modesty and stability.” Roberts took pains throughout his testimony to cite famous liberal jurists and court opinions. He announced that he does not believe in reading the Constitution for its original intent, such as conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.Roberts declared he believes privacy, the foundation of abortion and gay rights rulings, is an enumerated Constitutional right. He adroitly sidestepped every rhetorical trap laid by Republicans and Democrats to get him to state his views on current controversies.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called Roberts’ performance a “tour de force.” Schumer, reading a prepared statement, praised Roberts for testifying hours on end “without any paper in front of you at all, without a single aide whispering a word to you or passing you a note.” “You may very well possess the most powerful intellect of any person to come before the Senate for this position,” Schumer said. Schumer praised Roberts’ quest for modesty and stability, and for being his “a lawyer above all.”
So this means that the Dems will give up the game and vote for Roberts with near unanimity, as the Republicans did for Justice Ginsburg, right? Well, no. The Chronicle goes on to note that "the eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee — and other Democratic senators — are being pressure by liberal interest groups unified against Roberts. [So] as the hearings continued today, the committee Democrats seemed to be searching for a way to explain to their constituents a vote against the nominee."
Here's what they came up with -- Roberts lacks a heart. The Dems couldn't explain how they know this. It's difficult to exhibit heart while conducting a seminar on the law. Can we say that Hank Aaron lacks a heart because he didn't display one while he was hitting all those home runs?
In fact, however, Roberts' pro bono work for a variety of needy or unpopular clients provides evidence of his heart; better evidence, in fact, than the pious posturing of Senate Dems does of theirs. Yet the Democrats, bent on flailing away into incoherence, tried to turn Roberts' pro bono work against him. The shameless Senator Durbin took the lead:
To Roberts’ statements that he can argue both sides of a case — in response to question about his pro bono work on Romer v. Evans, a gay rights case where he helped the gay plaintiffs — Democrats asked if that means he has no values. “If this is just a process, a legal contest, and you’ll play for any team that asks you to play, it raises a question about where would you draw the line if you would ever draw the line,” said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
So if a conservative always takes the conservative side, he's a heartless ideologue. If he's willing, in the "public interest" to sometimes take the other side without pay, he has no values.
But Roberts repeatedly identified his core value -- respect for the rule of law. And herein lies the problem: to Democrats, respect for the rule of law doesn't count as a value. To them, the law is simply a pretext for achieving desired results or (if not suited for that work) an obstacle to be circumvented for the same purpose. No wonder John Roberts gives them the willies.
Via Power Line News
UPDATE: Erik Jaffe at the Volokh Conspiracy makes a similar point.
JOHN adds: I've been traveling on business for a couple of days without a laptop--very rare for me--so I've been out of touch. Consider this email that I received this afternoon from Howard Dean in the light of Deacon's analysis above:
John Roberts may have a sharp legal mind, but his record shows that he lacks a sense of justice.The skills John Roberts displays are like those of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove or House Republican Leader Tom DeLay. Both of those men have sharp political minds -- they are among the smartest in Washington. But they use those skills to push a narrow ideology and win at any cost. Roberts has spent a career using the law to protect corporate interests and roll back the rights that protect us all.
Roberts, Rove, DeLay and the rest of the extremist Republican leadership all have the same problem. They abuse their power by pursuing ideological crusades -- and they ignore the real problems we face as a country and as a community.
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the disastrous response, we have seen the consequences of government by ideologues and political cronies. We have also seen the stark reality of American life that people like Roberts, Rove and DeLay either don't understand or choose to ignore -- that inequalities still persist to this day.
Our rights -- and the rights of the most vulnerable in our society -- are in danger. They are in danger from those who actively seek to roll them back, and they are in danger from those in positions of leadership who don't understand how important it is to protect the rights of every American.
Notice the trick that Dean employs here: he consistently attacks Republicans as "ideologues," implying that the Democrats' views are, by contrast, free of ideology. Judge Roberts, in particular, is charged with pursuing "ideological crusades."
But this is utterly wacky. What "ideological crusade" has Roberts ever pursued? None. Dean's real charge against Roberts is that he does not intend to carry on an ideological crusade by being an activist liberal judge. Dean thinks that every Supreme Court justice should be an activist liberal who will take the law into his own hands, overturn precedent where necessary, invalidate Congressional action when it conflicts with his liberal activism, and generally do everything possible to eliminate "inequality." Judge Roberts has indicated that he has no intention of being such a justice. Rather, he will read the Constitution and the laws and apply them according to their terms.
It is, of course, Howard Dean and his fellow leftists who are pursuing an ideological crusade, and their real grievance against John Roberts is that he has no intention of joining them, since "crusading" is not the role of a judge.
