Thursday, July 21, 2005

Liberal professor: Filibuster Roberts

Some pointy-headed law professor at Duke thinks the Dems should filibuster Roberts. It's a damned shame to think that parents are wasting their money sending little Johnny to Duke's law school with this dimwit as a law professor. Full story here, excerpt follows:
Senate Democrats should announce they will filibuster the nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court unless he offers convincing assurances that he will not be a far-right conservative in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas.
His impugning of the two best (i.e. most "strict constructionist" types) justices notwithstanding, it's none of his or anyone else's damned business if the justice is liberal, conservative, libertarian, or socialist. What's important is judicial temperament. If Race Baiter Ginsburg attended American Communist Party meetings but actually interpreted the constitution instead of foisting her usual activism upon us, I wouldn't give a wet fart on a dry January Monday. I wonder how this professor would feel if Senate Republicans said "We refuse to consider a judicial nominee unless he/she proves to us they're not a liberal activist judge in the mold of Ginsburg or Breyer." Here's guessing he'd blow a gasket.

Imagine in the 1950s a nominee who had consistently written briefs urging the overruling or limiting of Brown v. Board of Education. The nominee should have been rejected by the Senate unless he or she could show that the written record was not an accurate reflection of his or her views. That is exactly how the Senate should treat Roberts.
Freakin' unbelievable! Inferring that Roberts would have urged the narrowing of Brown is beyond the pale. And please, don't try to tell me "he was just trying to put Roe v. Wade in context!

It is impossible to overstate the importance of this seat on the Supreme Court. In the last few years, Justice O'Connor has been the fifth vote in 5-4 decisions to strike down laws restricting access to abortion (nothing in Roe v. Wade says abortion can't have certain restrictions), to uphold federal campaign finance laws (stupid ass ruling in clear violation of the First Amendment), to allow colleges and universities to take actions to ensure diversity (NOT a federal role, certainly NOT a compelling government interest, and said programs are clear violations of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment), to invalidate death sentences for ineffective assistance of counsel (I'm pro-death penalty, but you'll get no disagreement out of me about poor counsel...the case should be retried), and to limit the presence of religious symbols on government property (The horror! Oh, by the way, there is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution, though I don't lose a wink of sleep over a government employee with some or no religious symbols). Roberts has the chance to change the law in all of these crucial areas.
Emphasis and comments mine. See prior posting on how judges don't get to make (and thus change) law. Continuing:
Senate Democrats should ask probing and detailed questions and make clear: no answers, no confirmation.
Race Baiter Ginsburg declined to answer questions, yet was confirmed overwhelmingly. Oh, that's right...she's a liberal, so that's OK.

Look, I hope the Dems do filibuster Roberts, thus triggering the constitutional option to end judicial filibusters. I just think that while they're not all that smart, Senate Dems aren't all that stupid, either.