ConfirmThem

By Carol Platt Liebau Posted in SCOTUS — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The Senate's focus on "John Roberts the man" as manifested in this AP piece is as ridiculous as it is frustrating.

This obsession with the personal is the mark of a society that sees judges not in their proper role as impartial arbiters and Constitutional interpreters, but as superlegislators, who are and should be bringing personal policy preferences to the act of adjudicating. John Roberts has said, "Judges wear black robes because it doesn't matter who they are as individuals. That's not going to shape their decision. It's their understanding of the law that will shape their decision."

And that's as it should be. If a judge sticks to his traditional obligation to interpret the Constitution, rather than making law, his personal views, preferences, experiences and insights should matter not at all. Indeed, Judge Roberts' own experiences with end-of-life issues are (or should be) completely irrelevant as to whether there's a right to "assisted suicide" in the Constitution, for example.

Certainly, justices must be men and women of good character -- there's no room on the bench for those of flawed integrity. But that's not the issue that the senators seem worried about when Dianne Feinstein bleats, "I'm trying to see your feelings as a man," or when Mike DeWine intones, "President Bush nominated John Roberts, the man."

No, he didn't, Senator DeWine -- he nominated John Roberts the judge. And the emphasis in the Senate hearings belongs on judicial -- not personal -- philosophy.