Thursday, July 21, 2005

Exhibit 1.0

Want to see stark contrast between the conservative and liberal judicial philosophy? Here you go

Senator Chuck Schumer during the press conference immediately following the President's announcement of John Roberts as his SCOTUS pick:
SCHUMER: I hope Judge Roberts, understanding how important this nomination is, particularly when replacing a swing vote on the court will decide to answer questions about his views. Now that he is nominated for a position where he can overturn precedent and make law, it's even more important that he fully answers a broad range of questions. I hope, for the sake of the country, that Judge Roberts understands this and opens questions -- sorry, and answers questions openly, honestly and thoroughly.
Did you catch it? Supreme Court Justices are supposed to make law. In other words the Supreme Court session should be just like a constant Constitutional Convention.

Now for the conservative view here is John Roberts during his confirmation hearing to the DC Circut Court:
My own judicial philosophy begins with an appreciation of the limited role of a judge in our system of divided powers. Judges are not to legislate and are not to execute the laws. . . . My judicial philosophy accordingly insists upon some rigor in ensuring that judges properly confine themselves to the adjudication of the case before them, and seek neither to legislate broadly not to administer the law generally in deciding that case.
You can't get any more distinct that that.

Understanding this statement from Roberts goes a long way to explain the so called "French Fry" ruling that has some conservatives worried. Basically Roberts ruled that while he disagreed with the laws on the book there was no constitutional precedent to overturn the descision. This should be an encouragement more than a disapointment(despite the seeming liberal nature of the ruling), this tells me that he won't start finding things in the constitution that nobody has ever heard of before.