"It is fitting that a great chief justice be followed in office by a person who shared his deep reverence for the Constitution, his profound respect for the Supreme Court and his complete devotion to the cause of justice," Bush said from the White House, with the judge by his side. (via CNN)Roberts has been pushed as some sort of unassailable choice when he was still being tapped to replace Sandra Day O'Connor so I suppose he'll be considered a slam dunk for the chief justice slot.
Much has been said about Roberts' record on woman and minorities, but let's concentrate on Bush's assertion that Roberts has a "complete devotion to the cause of justice." The nomination of Roberts to head up the highest court in the land goes to the heart of the Bush/Republican view of justice -- and it isn't pretty.
As Dahlia Lithwick wrote in Slate while Roberts was still be considered for O'Connor's position:
But it seems to me that the single biggest difference between the two jurists lies not in their respective ideologies, intellects, or job experience. The key difference is just this: O'Connor had a deep and abiding belief that government (and especially the court) could help people, while Roberts seemingly believes that no problem is too big for government (and especially the court) to ignore.And, isn't that the biggest problem with the Republicans as has been so amply demonstrated by their criminal inaction re Katrina? Republicans believe that the only role of government is to grease the wheels of big business. They believe in the United States of Capitalism and that it's now a capitol offense to not have a car (as in "those people" refused to leave before Katrina hit).
They believe in cutting government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub" and New Orleans drowns.
While they pledge allegiance to the flag with liberty and justice for all, their notions of justice is to protect the few at the top from the many at the bottom.
And Roberts is in the lead in their movement because Roberts, as Slate notes has, "expansive views on the constitutionality of court-stripping legislation...Court-stripping legislation isn't merely an attack on the courts' prerogative to review the constitutionality of a law. It cuts off access to justice, telling wronged parties they deserve no remedy."
What Republicans really mean when they fling out the phrase "judicial activism" is that there is no role for courts as remedial institutions. Just as they believe that there is no problem too big for government to ignore, they believe that there is injustice too big to ignore.
Again from Slate:
So Roberts has made it his work to try to hobble the courts, be it by approving court-stripping legislation, cutting off access to courts for classes of plaintiffs, limiting the reach of federal statutes, or curbing the power of the courts to remedy injustices. The best courts, it seems, are bound, gagged, and left to huddle in a closet. One sort of wonders why the job of judge appeals to him in the first place.Wonder no more. It's not enough for Roberts to fight for the rights of the few over the many as he has over the entire length of his career, now he will be chief in the land to deny the rights of the low at the pleasure of those most high.
What does it mean when a judge spends so much energy barring the courtroom door to citizens seeking relief? Is it proper when the courts are forced to say, "Sorry about your rape/discrimination/job/environmental hazard/crap schools/what-have-you, but there's just no relief to be had"? Are we comfortable with a judge so willing to dismiss civil rights, environmental, disability, voting, workers, and race complainants as undeserving, whiny masses?If Katrina has taught us anything, it is the answer to that question for this administration is a big resounding (and deadly) "yes."
Technorati Tags: Supreme Court SCOTUS John Roberts
No comments:
Post a Comment