Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-14-2005, 11:27 PM   #1 (permalink)
Crazy
 
John Roberts denounces Original Intent

The more I see of this guy the more it looks like hardcore conservatives are in for a very rude awakening when he takes his seat on the Court. Not only did he reject the importance of original intent yesterday, he sent a clear signal that he believes in the idea of a "living" Constitution that so many conservatives have often rejected.


Quote:
Chief justice nominee John G. Roberts Jr. carefully avoided taking sides on many issues Wednesday, but he went out of his way at his Senate confirmation hearing to put some distance between himself and justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — the Supreme Court's two staunchest conservatives. And the issue was a basic one, with possibly great import for the future: How should a high court justice interpret the Constitution?

Scalia and Thomas proudly call themselves "originalists." They say the Constitution should be interpreted strictly, based on its literal words and its original history. Like other conservatives, they shun the notion of a "living Constitution." They say their approach is faithful to the Constitution as it was written in 1787 and amended since then. Scalia says, only half-joking, that he believes in a "dead Constitution."

This look to the past leaves no room to consider such contemporary concepts as a right to die or equal rights for gays.

Roberts pointedly said Wednesday that he disagreed with this narrow originalist approach and would apply the Constitution in light of today's concerns and understandings.

"I depart from some views of original intent," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Words such as liberty or equality should not be given a "cramped or narrow construction," based on "just the conditions at the time" when the Constitution was written, he said.

"The framers chose broad terms, [with] a broad applicability, and they state a broad principle," he told Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the committee's chairman.

He noted that the preamble to the Constitution says the document was designed "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

"It applies to modern times," he said. The Founding Fathers intended the Constitution "to apply to changing conditions. And I think that in that sense, it is alive … and applies down through the ages," Roberts said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines
CShine is offline  
Old 09-14-2005, 11:44 PM   #2 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
It truly is hard to say what ANY judge believes until once we see how they rule a couple times and what their pattern of thought.

He could be saying whatever, to get easily approved by the Dems. and make it look like he'll be more fair than what he will be once on the bench.

And vice versa, Bush may have believed he would be getting an ultra conservative only to find once there Roberts is more liberal than anyone believed.

So who knows, only time will tell.

You are talking about arguably a position more powerful than the president, and he maybe hungry and conniving enough to say what ever he needs to to get this lifelong powerful position.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 02:02 AM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Well, I don't hold as cynical a view of this process as pan.
I do consider that people can employ various definitions of what constitutes a living Constitution.
While Roberts may agree the Constitution is relevant to modern issues, he may differ from people who generally that view in how the application is achieved.

That is, the Constitution may very well apply to modern issues, but is it the role of the court to derive meaning from the social context or the principles embedded within the document? He may well hold the view that new principles ought to be instigated by Congress (although he has written disdainfully of their logic skills in the past). One could conceivably believe that the document is indeed living, but not malleable by the Court; rather, one could still hold that view simultaneously with the belief that only Congress has the power to forge newly recognized rights.

This is one possible way for someone to skate the line between the "originalist" camp and the "living document" camp.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 03:26 PM   #4 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
I think the writers of the constitution did give us a living document. They gave us a way to amend it when/if it becomes outdated. I believe they thought that it would have to be amended from time to time to take into consideration contemporary concepts. Stretching their original intent should not be necessary and could be rather dangerous. Jurists should interpret the law, not make it.
flstf is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 06:50 PM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Schumer was grilling him about this today, and Judge Roberts totally outmaneuvered him and danced around directly answering the question. Apparently Justice Thomas made some similar remarks during his nomination hearings, and dem's are afraid Judge Roberts might be similar when he's installed on the SC. The more I hear of this hearing and how Judge Roberts is handling himself, the more I like him. The more the Senate tries to get him to commit on certain hot-button issues, the more he seems to make them look foolish/partisan.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 08:56 PM   #6 (permalink)
Addict
 
politicophile's Avatar
 
The Democratic Senators on the Judiciary are no match for John Roberts: he could be the most conservative jurist in U.S. history and they still wouldn't be able to prove he was an extremist. Roberts has spent his entire life preparing for this moment: he is amazingly intelligent and patient, and he will have no difficulty outmanuvering the idiots that call themselves Senators.

There are certainly degrees of originalism. My prediction of John Roberts is that he will turn out somewhat to the right of O'Connor and Kennedy, but perhaps a hair to the left of Rehnquist. A degree of respect for the Constitution as a document is important for any Justice, simply because of the overwhelming importance of rule of law: a court must not be permitted to interpret the Constitution in just any way they see fit. Rather, a fine balance must be struck between legislating from the bench whilst ignoring the Constitution, and binding oneself to an 18th-century interpretation of an 18th-century document. From my view, Rehnquist struck the best balance in this regard, although he sometimes tended to rely to heavily on an originalist reading.

John Roberts, it seems, understands the importance of allowing judicial understanding of the Constitution to change over time. However, as a conservative, he presumably also understands that we have a Constitution for a reason. I hope that he sees the attraction of slow, gradual change to Constitutional interpretation.
__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
politicophile is offline  
 

Tags
denounces, intent, john, original, roberts


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:51 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360