The Judiciary: Laws as Good as Its People

With the recent confirmation of John Roberts as our nation’s 17th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, many are wondering where the Court will go from here. Under normal circumstances, the positions of a nominee on almost every issue, especially controversial ones, would be clear. Unfortunately, like many things involving the Bush Administration, the recent confirmation hearing was anything but usual. While the Democrats wanted to know where Justice Roberts stood on issues like civil rights, eminent domain, and other current issues, the Republicans, most notably, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, urged Roberts to remain quiet. The audacity displayed by the Republicans during this hearing reflect, more than anything, their disdain for the Constitutional process of congressional advise and consent, and the rights of Americans to know the true opinions of their leaders.

Over the past months, there has been an inordinate amount of discussion and debate regarding the Judiciary and the Supreme Court. Many began to see the Judiciary branch as “activist”, and the Republicans began to decry Justices who “legislated from the bench” by issuing decisions that didn’t reflect the opinions of the Republican Party. Tom DeLay, the Republican Majority Leader of the House of Representatives (who was indicted this week for violating many campaign laws, and as a result, has stepped down from his position), criticized one Supreme Justice above all for a range of reasons, from using the Internet to do research, to citing the opinions of foreign courts when writing decisions on behalf of the Supreme Court.