please answer the question
Matthew Franck has an interesting post here about the legitimate questions that can and should be asked of a nominee to the Supreme Court.
Franck makes the case for what too many folks on the right seem to leave out of their judicial philosophies.
I am admittedly a neophyte when it comes to the great questions of the Supreme Court, but I've never understood the holy, let's all shuffle on our knees deference accorded to SC Justices, especially when it comes to the nomination process.
Yes, two critical components to a functioning legal system are objectivity and impartiality.
However, the Judiciary Branch is one of three branches of governments. I would say three equal branches.
When the Executive Branch changes hands, most of D.C. seems to get cleaned out, and the Republic doesn't fall. As we've seen with President Bush, the opposition has no hesitation about treating a sitting president like gutter sludge.
In the Legislative Branch, seats change hands every two years, and the Republic doesn't fall.
So, when seats come open on the Court, why is there this approach that the nominee, only a day before a flesh and blood human being, is now a sacred and untouchable paragon of law?
Why can't the Court be treated like an equal branch? Given its importance, we absolutely ought to be able to sound out a nominee on his or her views on the "gross" questions.
The value of law to a civilization does not lie in the law itself, in the words themselves. That value comes from citizens simply agreeing to live by the principles espoused in the law.
So, there is nothing improper in asking a nominee about their larger views on the law. It is simply part of that conversation we citizens have with each other about what how we will constrain ourselves. The nominee is as much a part of that society as the rest of us, so they should be more than willing to talk about the role they will play in devising those constraints. The power a Justice has is the power we as citizens give them. We citizens have a right to know what they will do with what we will give them.
Franck makes the case for what too many folks on the right seem to leave out of their judicial philosophies.
I am admittedly a neophyte when it comes to the great questions of the Supreme Court, but I've never understood the holy, let's all shuffle on our knees deference accorded to SC Justices, especially when it comes to the nomination process.
Yes, two critical components to a functioning legal system are objectivity and impartiality.
However, the Judiciary Branch is one of three branches of governments. I would say three equal branches.
When the Executive Branch changes hands, most of D.C. seems to get cleaned out, and the Republic doesn't fall. As we've seen with President Bush, the opposition has no hesitation about treating a sitting president like gutter sludge.
In the Legislative Branch, seats change hands every two years, and the Republic doesn't fall.
So, when seats come open on the Court, why is there this approach that the nominee, only a day before a flesh and blood human being, is now a sacred and untouchable paragon of law?
Why can't the Court be treated like an equal branch? Given its importance, we absolutely ought to be able to sound out a nominee on his or her views on the "gross" questions.
The value of law to a civilization does not lie in the law itself, in the words themselves. That value comes from citizens simply agreeing to live by the principles espoused in the law.
So, there is nothing improper in asking a nominee about their larger views on the law. It is simply part of that conversation we citizens have with each other about what how we will constrain ourselves. The nominee is as much a part of that society as the rest of us, so they should be more than willing to talk about the role they will play in devising those constraints. The power a Justice has is the power we as citizens give them. We citizens have a right to know what they will do with what we will give them.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home