Tuesday, October 04, 2005

They Just Don't Get It.

Roberts answers Dick "I hate America" Durbin.

From the Weekly Standard:

Chief Justice Roberts
From the September 26, 2005 issue: The distinction between law and politics that the Judiciary Democrats do not respect lies at the heart of Roberts's approach to judging
by Terry Eastland, for the Editors
09/26/2005, Volume 011, Issue 02

ON THE FINAL DAY OF the Roberts hearings, Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois tried one last time: "If you've made one point many times over . . . the course of the last three days," he told the judge, "it is that as a judge you will be loyal and faithful to the process of law, to the rule of law."
That is a good thing, Turban boy!
And here it comes now...

But "beyond loyalty to the process of law," he asked Roberts, "how do you view [the] law when it comes to expanding our personal freedom? . . . That's what I've been asking."

There is no "beyond loyalty to the process of law". This is what the problem is with liberals.
The law is just an impediment to their agenda to socially engineer the "great society". You don't have to follow the Constitution as long as you're acting the the interests of "fairness" and "helping the little guy". Righting the wrongs of evil American imperialism, success, and capitalism.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

And so, in various ways, had Durbin's Democratic colleagues been asking about such matters--ones "beyond loyalty" to the rule of law. In response to Durbin, Roberts stuck to the point he had indeed made "many times over." Reframing the senator's question so as to reach the core issue, Roberts said, "Somebody asked me, you know, 'Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?' And you obviously want to give an immediate answer. But as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that 'I'll look out for particular interests.' . . . The oath is to uphold the

Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do."

If he rules the way he answers, there may be hope for us all.
Go get them Mr. Roberts. I hope you stay true to your apparent convictions.

We shall see...


No comments: