ConfirmThem

By Marshall Manson Posted in SCOTUS — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Received the must-read memo below this morning. I'll try to post my own reflections on the hearing and current state of play a little later. Until then, happy reading...

TO: INTERESTED PARTIES
FROM: Leonard Leo, Wendy Long and Jay Sekulow
DATE: Friday, September 16, 2005

SUBJECT: JOHN ROBERTS, JUDICIAL CONSERVATIVE

Over the past three days, it was Judge Roberts vs. the liberal ideologues of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we are proud to report that Judge Roberts, to continue the baseball analogy, hit it out of the park. Judge Roberts was very forthcoming about his judicial philosophy as he introduced himself to the country. He said from the very beginning, and throughout his testimony, that the courts have a limited role in our democratic republic, and that he is a servant of the Constitution and the rule of law, with no political agenda. He set forth in simple and clear terms the doctrine of judicial restraint -- in stark contrast to the judicial activism reflected in yesterday's ruling by a federal court in California that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional.

The reason liberal Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden and Diane Feinstein were so obviously frustrated with Judge Roberts is because they wanted him to take positions like a politician on their liberal agenda. The difference between Judge Roberts' judicial conservatism and liberal judicial activism was best illustrated in the rather heated comments by Senator Biden, who publicly displayed his frustration with Judge Roberts's faithfulness to the rule of law. Senator Biden basically asked Judge Roberts to take political and policy positions, because Senators must do so to win election. Judge Roberts responded by eloquently explaining that judges are not candidates for political office, that they are neutral umpires of the law, and that he would not answer liberal litmus tests in order to win votes.

The fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals was on display the past three days. Liberals want Justices who will hijack the democratic process and impose a liberal agenda in the guise of the Constitution. Stripping “under God� out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Imposing same-sex marriage nationwide. Relying on foreign law to contort the meaning of the American Constitution. The Left wants Justices to ignore provisions that are clearly in the Constitution, such as the Fifth Amendment’s “public use� requirement on the taking of property, and to invent provisions that are nowhere in the Constitution, but rather are left for the people to decide.

Judge Roberts’s testimony underscored why President Bush nominated him: Like the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas, Judge Roberts deeply understands the proper role of judges in our constitutional republic. Like them, he respects the power of the people to decide through their elected representatives what policy should be pursued on controversial social issues. Like them, he will not distort the Constitution to impose the Left’s agenda.

President George Bush promised to appoint a Justice who would faithfully apply the law rather than making it up from the bench. John Roberts is a promise kept. In response to questions respecting a wide array of issues, Judge Roberts consistently held his ground: judges don’t have a license to impose political policies in our government by the consent of the governed. That is inconsistent with the role the Framers set for the Court in the Constitution.

John Roberts will be confirmed. But we have no expectation that the margin of victory will be very generous. No matter who the President nominates, a Justice who will be faithful to the Constitution and the rule of law will never satisfy the Democrats and the liberal special interests.