E.J. Dionne speculates that Chief Justice John Roberts is going to be a big disappointment to conservatives.
I am repeatedly reminded of Plato's Republic when I read political commentary. Socrates argued that the philosophers should govern because, well, they're the smartest. Most pundits, both (D) and (R) still believe this. They fear the will of the people; they just want their own ideology to prevail. The people, after all, are too stupid to know what is good for them.
President Bush said he would appoint justices who would uphold the rule of law and not try to legislate (their own social agenda) from the bench. He must have said that a hundred times. Roberts takes the bench and says he will do that. What is the big surprise? And what is the threat? The primary task of the Supreme Court is to determine Constitutionality, not to comment on, and certainly not to redirect, legislative intent. These comments by Roberts are not inflammatory or disappointing -- they are exactly what any justice should say, and they are a profoundly positive step in the right direction for the Supreme Court.
Roberts' speech [last month at Georgetown] defended the virtues of judicial humility: Justices should try to make the narrowest possible rulings and strive for unanimity, or something close to it.
"If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, in my view it is necessary not to decide more,'' Roberts said. Thus the Roberts Rule of Orderly Judging: The less the court decides the better.And there was this corollary: "The broader the agreement among the justices, the more likely it is that the decision is on the narrowest possible ground.''
"The rule of law is strengthened,'' Roberts insisted, "when there is greater coherence and agreement about what the law is.''
No comments:
Post a Comment