John Roberts Baseball Umpire or Supreme Court Judge?

[outsider]

Just watched some of the John Roberts hearing. Made simplistic analogy of the proposed position being like the umpire at a baseball game. To paraphrase: "to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat". Key points I heard from his speech: (which was basically a canned interview speech as anyone who has been in multiple job interviews)

1) He never imagined having the opportunity to be in the position he is in today.

2) He thanked all those who have made it possible: Family, GWB, colleagues

3) He intentionally or unintentionally negatively reflected on the life of a colleague who had recently passed away (I did not see the relevance)

4) He indicated of a situation where he won a case against the government. Specifically indicated that HE viewed the law more correctly.

5) He doesn't make the law, he just calls it like HE sees it.

6) He does not have an agenda because he is not a politician.

7) Politicians make promises.

8) He promised to be impartial and non-political.

Supreme Court makes laws... They are not just umpires... They can decide to change the color of the baseball, the shape of the bases, the height of the fences, the number of fielders, and then make the ultimate call between balls and strikes.

Personally, I've been an umpire and have been a basketball ref... I don't know why people trust me, but they do... I can, at anytime, make a bad call intentionally. No matter what the replay says, the Ref makes the final call.

This John Roberts does not appear to understand or (at least) acknowledge the scope of the position for which he is to hold.

Perhaps he is just THAT confident in the system.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Supreme Court makes laws...
This John Roberts does not appear to understand or (at least) acknowledge the scope of the position for which he is to hold.

The supreme court does not make laws, you're wrong about that. And what your seeing is called "false humility" - believe me, Roberts will be the most aggresively activist chief justice you've ever seen.

 

[Skyhunter]

The supreme court does not make laws, you're wrong about that. And what your seeing is called "false humility" - believe me, Roberts will be the most aggresively activist chief justice you've ever seen.

I don't know the guy personally, but from some of his written musings like "the so called right to privacy." leads me to believe you regretfully may be right on the mark!

Didn't get a chance to see the hearings, maybe I'll stream them later and be able to offer more insight.

 

[kyleb]

I didn't see the hearings either, but any judge who claims his job does not involve making laws is a bold-faced lair. Well, I suppose there is also the far off chance that a "judge" doesn't understand the concept of common law; but either way, such a man is not even fit to wear a robe.

On the other hand, I don't see any reason to disagree with his comment of "the so called right to privacy." Not that I have anything but the utmost respect for such desires and the laws which respect them, but I am not aware of any legal grounds to claim a generalized "right to privacy" exists. Am I missing something here?

Edit: I'm reading the transcript and it looks like I got a bit to carried away with my comment above as he never actually claimed that judges don't make laws, but rather glazed over the facts of common law in his umpire analogy. Granted, do I think that is rather weaselish but my "not fit to wear a robe" comment isn't rightly applicable here.

 

[SOS2008]

This article has some quotes from the hearings: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175162/ Some Republican Senators are advising him not to answer questions (reassuring him most of the Senate "will understand" hint, hint). I realize candidates don't answer all the questions, but this puts me off.

Here's a couple of them:

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah

I think we should remember these names in upcoming elections.

 

[pattylou]

On the other hand, I don't see any reason to disagree with his comment of "the so called right to privacy." Not that I have anything but the utmost respect for such desires and the laws which respect them, but I am not aware of any legal grounds to claim a generalized "right to privacy" exists. Am I missing something here?

If I understand, to say that it is a "so called right" means that in his opinion it should not be a right.

It's like if someone on this forum claimed to have won the Nobel prize, and it was obvious that this claim was a fabrication, we might say 'So tell us more about your so-called nobel prize' indicating that we don't believe it exists.

 

[faust9]

This article has some quotes from the hearings: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175162/ Some Republican Senators are advising him not to answer questions (reassuring him most of the Senate "will understand" hint, hint). I realize candidates don't answer all the questions, but this puts me off.

Here's a couple of them:

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah

I think we should remember these names in upcoming elections.

Oh how the hands of time tend to play with ones memories.

The Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists. Determining which will become activists is not easy since many of President Clinton's nominees tend to have limited paper trails... Determining which of President Clinton's nominees will become activists is complicated and it will require the Senate to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning of nominees' jurisprudential views." (Address of Senator Hatch before University of Utah Federalist Society chapter, February 18, 1997)

 

[kyleb]

If I understand, to say that it is a "so called right" means that in his opinion it should not be a right.

It's like if someone on this forum claimed to have won the Nobel prize, and it was obvious that this claim was a fabrication, we might say 'So tell us more about your so-called nobel prize' indicating that we don't believe it exists.

Actually, his comment was in regard to a particular trial where a generalized "right to privacy" was claimed as grounds for the ruling; where as I said, I am not familiar with any legal grounds to back that position.

And yeah, SOS, those quotes are rather shameful, but we have to consider that those congressmen were quite likely doing their jobs in representing their respective constituencies.

Lastly, Good stuff Faust. :tongue:

 

[russ_watters]

Personally, I think the umpire analogy is a good (and correct) one.

So far, it seems this guy is flying low, under the radar. And that's not what a lot of people have been expecting. A lot of people in a lot of the conversations about Bush prior to the election had Bush nominating super-right-wing bible-beaters to the USSC. It would appear that those fears were unfounded.

 

[kyleb]

I think it is a very slick as the correlation to common law is there if one understands that umpire practices exactly that in many ways; so while that aspect of such positions was blatantly avoided in his description, it still fits the analogy nicely. Unfortunately, that only goes to build my concern that he may well be exactly the super-right-wing bible-beater that was expected, yet so well greased that no one will take notice until after the fact.

 

[outsider]

The supreme court does not make laws, you're wrong about that. And what your seeing is called "false humility" - believe me, Roberts will be the most aggresively activist chief justice you've ever seen.

you are right to oppose my post, as my examples were not very good... but by setting precedence perceptions of law and (dare I say) social morals are shaped.

What IS and IS NOT a strike? Does the strike zone change or does the shape of home plate change? Is the batboy allowed to come to bat? Perhaps these are better analogies.

For anyone who has been a referee or played in sports, a bad call at a crucial point in time is all that it takes to turn the tides and change history.

If there are any professional wrestling fans out there, remember Dangerous Danny Davis?

Although no one goes to watch the umpire, the umpire is key to the outcome of the game.

 

[loseyourname]

The Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists. Determining which will become activists is not easy since many of President Clinton's nominees tend to have limited paper trails... Determining which of President Clinton's nominees will become activists is complicated and it will require the Senate to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning of nominees' jurisprudential views." (Address of Senator Hatch before University of Utah Federalist Society chapter, February 18, 1997)

Don't you just love politicians?

 

[Astronuc]

http://judiciary.senate.gov

MEMBER STATEMENTS - http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1610

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I found the statements by Senators Brownback (R-Kansas) and Coburn (R-Oklohoma) disturbing. IMO, they definitely reflect the religious right and the desire to impose one set of religious views on the entire country. And against that is what the courts must protect.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Brownback's statements -

Judge Roberts, as one of my colleagues was just saying, I hope we're done before my birthday ends. I welcome you to the court. Delighted to have you here, you and your family. I want to congratulate you on your lifetime of service thus far and looking forward to future service that you'll have for this great land.

I recall the meeting that you and I had in my office, as many of the members have here have as well, and enjoyed them. You said two things in there that I particularly took away and hung on as an indicator of yourself and how you would look at the courts and also what America needed from our courts.

One of the statements was that we need a more modest court. And I looked at that and I thought that's exactly, I think, the way the American people would look at the situation today.

We need a more modest court, a court that's a court but not a super-legislature, as you've heard others refer to, or is in a different role, but is a court.

And that's what it needs to be and that's what we need to have: one that looks at the constitution as it is, not as we wish it might be, but as it is, so that we can be a nation that is a rule-of-law nation.

You had a second point that was very apt, I thought, when you talked about the courts and baseball. You drew the analogy of those two together, which was apt, I thought. And you said it's a bad thing when the umpire is the most watched person on the field.

And I guess that appealed to me as well from the standpoint of where we are today's American governance, where the legislature can pass the bill, the executive can sign it, but everybody waits and holds their breath until how the court is going to look at this and how it's going to interpret it, because it seems as if the court is the real mover of what the actual law is.

And that's a bad thing. The umpire should call the ball fair or foul -- it's in or it's out -- but not get actively involved as a player on the field.

And, unfortunately, we've gotten to a point today where in many respects the judiciary is the most active policy player on the field.

I was struck by your nomination and what you said when you were nominated that you, quote, had a profound appreciation for the role of the court in our constitutional democracy.

And that's something I think we all respect and we look for in what we need to do.

Democracy I believe loses its luster when justices on the high court who are unelected and not directly accountable invent constitutional rights and alter the balance of governmental powers in ways that find no support in the text, the structure or the history of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the court in recent years I believe has gone into that terrain.

In our system of government, the Constitution contemplates that federal courts will exercise limited jurisdiction. They should neither write nor execute the laws, but simply say what the law is, in quoting Marbury v. Madison.

The narrow scope of judicial power was the reason the people accepted the idea that the federal courts could have the power of judicial review; that is, the ability to decide whether a challenged law comports with the Constitution.

The people believe that the courts would maintain their independence and at the same time would recognize their role by deferring to the political branches on policy choices.

Legitimacy based on judicial restraint was a concept perhaps best expressed by Justice Felix Frankfurter, appointed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

And he said this: Courts are not representative bodies. They are not designed to be a good reflex of a democratic society. Their judgment is best informed and therefore most dependable within narrow limits. Their essential quality is detachment, founded on independence. And history teaches that the independence of the judiciary is jeopardized when courts become embroiled in the passions of the day and assume primarily responsibility in choosing between competing political, economic and social pressures.

Primary responsibility for adjusting the interests which compete of necessity belongs to the Congress. Yet courts today have strayed far beyond this limited role. Constitutionalists from Hamilton to Frankfurter surely would be shocked at the broad sweep of judicial activity today.

Just listen to some of them.

Federal courts are redefining the meaning of marriage, deciding when a human life is worthy of protection, running prisons and schools by decree, removing expressions of faith in the public square, permitting the government under the takings clause to confiscate property from one person and give it to another in the name of private economic development and then interpreting our American Constitution on the basis of foreign and international law.

Perhaps the Supreme Court's most notorious exercise of raw political power came in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, two 1973 cases based on false statements which invented a Constitutional right to abortion. The issue had been handled by the people through their elected representatives prior to that time.

Since that time, nearly 40 million children have been aborted in America, 40 million lives that could be amongst us but are not, beautiful, innocent faces that could bless our existence and our families and our nation, creating and expanding a culture of life.

If you're confirmed, your court will decide if there is a constitutional right to partially deliver a late-term child and then destroy it.

Partial-birth abortion is making its way to the Supreme Court. The federal courts have thus far found laws limiting partial-birth abortion unconstitutional.

Now, it should be noted again, if Roe is overturned, it does not ban abortion in America. It merely returns the issue to the states so states like Kansas or California can set the standards they see right and just.

The principle of stare decisis will be involved. The Supreme Court frequently has overruled prior precedents, I would note. A case founded in my state, Brown v. the Board of Education, which overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, fits within a broad pattern -- evidenced since the founding of the Supreme Court, revising previous decisions.

I would note for you that, by some measure, the Supreme Court has overruled itself in 174 cases, with a substantial majority of those cases involving constitutional, not statutory, issues.

One final thought. In a just and healthy society, both righteousness and justice travel together. Righteousness, the knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil, that's something that's that's written within our hearts. Justice is the application of that knowledge.

Everybody in our representative form of government tries to do both of these -- righteousness and justice -- within the boundaries set for each of us. No one branch has unlimited control. The Supreme Court has boundaries, too. There are checks and balances on what it can deal with and what it can do.

For instance, the court cannot appropriate money. That power's specifically left to the Congress in the Constitution, no matter how right or just the court may view the cause.

We all are constitutional officers, sworn to uphold the Constitution. Yet each branch has separate functions which the other branch can check and balance.

The total system functions best when each branch does its job but not the others.

We arrived at an important moment with your nomination to serve as chief justice of the United States. Quite a title.

Will you serve, as Hamilton assured the people, by exercising judgment rather than will?

By review of your many legal writings over the past quarter century, it leads me to believe that this is the case. I hope that this instinct will be proven correct during the days to come; that, you, Judge Roberts, will be confirmed to serve as the first justice among equals; and that the noble legacy of the justice that you once served will be honored.

God bless you and your family.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

An umpire must make sure that the game is not 'fixed' in favor of one side, or that one side changes the rules arbitrarily. An umpire must ensure fairness.

 

[Astronuc]

Senator Coburn's statements -

First of all, I'd like to thank you and your staff, as well as all the staff of this committee. While we were traveling in August, they were laboring diligently to help prepare us for these hearings.

I also think everybody should know that Senator Brownback's entering his fifth decade, so he can catch up with the rest of us.

And, finally, I'm somewhat amused at the propensity for us to project your life expectancy. I met with you twice. And as the only physician on this panel, and one of the few nonlawyers on this panel, I find it somewhat amusing that we can predict that without a history of physical exam or a family history. But we'll let that pass.

I am a physician. And up until the end of this month, and hopefully after that, I'll continue to practice. This weekend I had the great fortunate of delivering two little girls.

And I've had the opportunity to talk with people from all walks of life as a physician, those that have nothing and those that have everything. And I believe the people in our country and in my state in particular are interested and concerned with two main issues.

And one is this word of judicial activism that means such a different thing to so many different people. And the second is the polarization that has resulted from it and the division that has occurred in our country that separates us and divides us at a time when we need to be together.

We each have our own definition of judicial activism. Essentially the court will not become an activist court if it adheres to its appropriate role and does not attempt to legislate or create policy.

There always will be and should always be checks on each of the different branches of government.

Yet look where we are today. Decades of judicial activism have created these huge rifts in the social fabric of our country.

Whether we're on one side or the other, it's a tension pulling us apart rather than a tension pulling us together.

I believe we've seen federal and state legislators' responsibility usurped by the court, especially to make important decisions. And I think that is what has created a lot of the division within our country.

And I believe it's time that that stopped and a limited role for the Supreme Court -- and I think we're willing to debate as a country what judicial activism is. But we're also wanting someone who will listen to both sides of that and, in a measured and balanced way, knowing what the Constitution says and the restraint that our forefathers have written about, will take that into consideration.

I'm deeply heartened in that I've read many statements that you've made. I believe you indicate a more proper role for that of the judiciary.

And I believe, in our discussions, super-legislation -- a super- legislator body -- is not what the court was intended to be.

When I ponder our country and its greatness, its weaknesses, its potential, my heart aches for less divisiveness, less polarization, less finger-pointing, less bitterness, less mindless partisanship which, at times, sounds almost hateful to the ear of Americans.

The problems before our country are enormous. Our family structures have declined. Our dependency on government has grown. The very heritage of our country, which was borne out of sacrifice by those who preceded us, is at risk.

We are all Americans. We all want the greatest future for the generations to come, protection for the innocent and the frail, support for those less fortunate. But, most of all, we want an America that will live on as a beacon of hope, freedom, kindness and opportunity.

America is an idea; it's not competing ideologies. It's an idea that has proven tremendously successful and, when we reduce it to that of competing ideologies, we make it less than what it is.

I believe the genius of our founders is that they recognized that individual rights were derived from a creator, not a king, not a court, not a legislature or a state.

Our founders were concerned that, if our rights derived from the state or a court, they can be taken away by a state or a court.

Our Constitution enshrines this idea and gives its meaning in the rule of law. That's why it's important for us to respect the words of that Constitution.

I would hope as we conduct these hearings over the next few days our tendency as politicians to be insensitive, bitter, discourteous and political will surrender to the higher values that define us as a nation.

We have an opportunity to lead by example, to restore the values and principles that bind us together.

How we conduct ourselves and how we treat you, Judge Roberts, can be a great start toward reconciliation in our country.

I want one America.

An America that continues to be divided is an America that is at risk.

Our country waits for its leaders at all levels to rise to the occasion of rebuilding our future by placing our political fortunes last and constitutional principles first and working diligently to reconcile each and every American to the freedom and responsibility that our republic demands.

May God bless our efforts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

One America? Who get's to decide what this one America is?

IMO, the statement on partisanship is disingenuous. It hasn't been decades of court intervention, but rather politians seeking to undermine individual liberties, failing to uphold the law, or otherwise undermining the Constitution

 

[BobG]

Just watched some of the John Roberts hearing. Made simplistic analogy of the proposed position being like the umpire at a baseball game. To paraphrase: "to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat". Key points I heard from his speech: (which was basically a canned interview speech as anyone who has been in multiple job interviews)
...

Personally, I've been an umpire and have been a basketball ref... I don't know why people trust me, but they do... I can, at anytime, make a bad call intentionally. No matter what the replay says, the Ref makes the final call.

This John Roberts does not appear to understand or (at least) acknowledge the scope of the position for which he is to hold.

Perhaps he is just THAT confident in the system.

I don't see why you're so impressed with your ability to intentionally make bad calls. I refereed soccer and could make bad calls without even trying. :rofl:

The analogy to an umpire or referee is a good one, but bad calls aren't the problem.

The strike zone doesn't always have to stay the same size, even it's the same size for both teams during that particular game. Two little league teams with wild pitchers, an umpire with a lick of common sense isn't going to have a very small strike zone - the ump eventually wants to go home.

Or, something I'm a little more familiar with, soccer referees let their own opinion of the game affect the way they call a game. In my opinion, referees that have played the game allow a lot more physical contact than referees that have more experience with American sports like basketball. That can have a huge impact on how a game turns out, even if called fairly. An aggressive, physical team will do much better when the referee sees a lot of physical contact as a natural part of the game and a finesse team will do much better when the referee tends to call a very 'tight' game, allowing very little physical contact.

Roberts's appointment will have the same impact on cases that come before the Supreme Court. Someone will be positively affected by a conservative Supreme Court Justice and someone will be negatively affected by a conservative Supreme Court Justice even if the judge is fair and competent.

 

[kyleb]

One America? Who get's to decide what this one America?

God, and God has no tolerance for baby-killers. At least that is what I got out of Coburn's statements and more indirectly from Brownback as well.

 

[Skyhunter]

Personally, I think the umpire analogy is a good (and correct) one.

So far, it seems this guy is flying low, under the radar. And that's not what a lot of people have been expecting. A lot of people in a lot of the conversations about Bush prior to the election had Bush nominating super-right-wing bible-beaters to the USSC. It would appear that those fears were unfounded.

So we get a low key right-wing bible beater, the result will be the same.

Although replacing Rehnquist with Roberts is a wash. It is the replacement for O'Connor that will swing the court, so that Edwin Meese's judicial agenda will finally be realized. And that includes the religious rights argument that the constitution only guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, and that there is no "wall of separation between Church and State".

It really saddens me to see this great country go down this ideological dead end.

Is it just coincidence that they are using baseball analogy, or is it a conspiracy?

Aug. 20, 2005 "He is our utility infielder," said Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyers' group. "He deals with whatever issue is on our plate at a given moment. And he is our moral compass. He reminds us, just by his presence, there is a long history to defending a judicial philosophy that pays proper respect to the Constitution as it is written."

Emphasis added by me.

God Bless the United Christian Church and State of America!

 

[Astronuc]

John G. Roberts
Biography - from http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/robertsbio.htm

Mr. Roberts is the head of Hogan & Hartson’s Appellate Practice Group. He graduated from Harvard College, summa cum laude, in 1976, and received his law degree, magna cum laude, in 1979 from the Harvard Law School, where he was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. Following graduation he clerked for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the following year for then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist.

Following his clerkship experience, Mr. Roberts served as Special Assistant to United States Attorney General William French Smith. In 1982 President Reagan appointed Mr. Roberts to the White House Staff as Associate Counsel to the President, a position in which he served until joining Hogan & Hartson in 1986. Mr. Roberts’ responsibilities as Associate Counsel to the President included counseling on the President’s constitutional powers and responsibilities, as well as other legal issues affecting the executive branch.

At Hogan & Hartson, Mr. Roberts developed a civil litigation practice, with an emphasis on appellate matters. He personally argued before the United States Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, participating in a wide variety of matters on behalf of corporate clients, trade associations, governments, and individuals.

Mr. Roberts left the firm in 1989 to accept appointment as Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, a position in which he served until returning to the firm in 1993. In that capacity he personally argued before the Supreme Court and the federal courts of appeals on behalf of the United States, and participated in formulating the litigation position of the government and determining when the government would appeal adverse decisions. Mr. Roberts had general substantive responsibility within the Office of the Solicitor General for cases arising from the Civil and Civil Rights Divisions of the Justice Department, as well as from a variety of independent agencies.

Mr. Roberts has presented oral arguments before the Supreme Court in more than thirty cases, covering the full range of the Court’s jurisdiction, including admiralty, antitrust, arbitration, environmental law, First Amendment, health care law, Indian law, bankruptcy, tax, regulation of financial institutions, administrative law, labor law, federal jurisdiction and procedure, interstate commerce, civil rights, and criminal law.

Mr. Roberts is a member of the American Law Institute and the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, and has also received the Edmund J. Randolph Award for outstanding service to the Department of Justice. He is a member of the Bars of the District of Columbia, the United States Supreme Court, and various federal Courts of Appeals.

He may not have been a judge, but he has practiced in the USSC and Courts of Appeals, so he knows the process. He is familiar with a range of cases.

I just hope he is fair, open-minded, and impartial.

I also hope that he keeps in mind the notion of checks and balances, and that the USSC sometimes has to check the Executive and Legislative Branches when they go too far and begin to infringe upon individual liberty and human rights.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for the umpire, I really like moron level analogies; esp from a supreme court judge.

He seemed okay until he opened his mouth...

 

[Astronuc]

As for the umpire, I really like moron level analogies; esp from a supreme court judge.

Well I wouldn't be so quick to judge him, yet. The umpire analogy may work, but then various different interests have different ideas about how the umpire should do his or her work.

Fair and impartial, deliberative and not arbitrary, free of others' political agendas are the keys.

 

[pattylou]

Someone was interviewed here on the umpire analogy last night - they made the astute (IMO) comment that whenever they umpired a game, no one would ever question their call, even if they knew they made a bad call.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well I wouldn't be so quick to judge him, yet. The umpire analogy may work, but then various different interests have different ideas about how the umpire should do his or her work.

I was kidding. Frankly, I found it insulting. We're all big kids now and we don't need to be talked to like children.

Fair and impartial, deliberative and not arbitrary, free of others' political agendas are the keys.

...and deceptive or truthful. Oversimplification is not a good way to start - a key test of sincerity, in my experience.

 

[Astronuc]

Well the umpire analogy does strike me as something a 'good ol' boy' or 'bubba' would say.

But then I have heard a lot of high level politicians and corporate managers who talk exactly like that. :yuck:

 

[loseyourname]

So we get a low key right-wing bible beater, the result will be the same.

Although replacing Rehnquist with Roberts is a wash. It is the replacement for O'Connor that will swing the court, so that Edwin Meese's judicial agenda will finally be realized. And that includes the religious rights argument that the constitution only guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, and that there is no "wall of separation between Church and State".

You know, not to say there might not be legitimate concerns about Roberts, but you're sounding a bit like the people who campaigned against Al Smith in '28 because he was Catholic, saying the pope would be put in charge of the US.

 

[outsider]

I don't see why you're so impressed with your ability to intentionally make bad calls. I refereed soccer and could make bad calls without even trying. :rofl:

The analogy to an umpire or referee is a good one, but bad calls aren't the problem.

The strike zone doesn't always have to stay the same size, even it's the same size for both teams during that particular game. Two little league teams with wild pitchers, an umpire with a lick of common sense isn't going to have a very small strike zone - the ump eventually wants to go home.

Or, something I'm a little more familiar with, soccer referees let their own opinion of the game affect the way they call a game. In my opinion, referees that have played the game allow a lot more physical contact than referees that have more experience with American sports like basketball. That can have a huge impact on how a game turns out, even if called fairly. An aggressive, physical team will do much better when the referee sees a lot of physical contact as a natural part of the game and a finesse team will do much better when the referee tends to call a very 'tight' game, allowing very little physical contact.

Roberts's appointment will have the same impact on cases that come before the Supreme Court. Someone will be positively affected by a conservative Supreme Court Justice and someone will be negatively affected by a conservative Supreme Court Justice even if the judge is fair and competent.

well said. from my experience, basketball is far more physical than soccer. soccer players like to take dives and cry alot... not only that, but usually the ball gets passed before any physical contact is initiated.

John Roberts being younger and having much of (what it seems) a spotless record, is a fine play by GWB for the Republican team.

 

[kyleb]

You never really played soccer. ;)

 

[outsider]

Well the umpire analogy does strike me as something a 'good ol' boy' or 'bubba' would say.

But then I have heard a lot of high level politicians and corporate managers who talk exactly like that. :yuck:

the wise communicator will dumb down the message for his audience... however, in this case, I don't think it was absolutely necessary... so i can't help but question his wisdom. This is only my personal opinion :tongue:

 

[outsider]

You never really played soccer. ;)

Perhaps... but perhaps you never really played basketball?

IMO soccer only gets physical temporarily while the ball is in close proximity. Perhaps you are just talking about the foul play involved in playing dirty, "unintentionally" kicking someone in the groin or grabbing each others teabags. I like soccer, don't get me wrong... the level of consistent intensity is nothing compared to basketball...

let's not hijack the thread... referees, umpires and judges are given the power to decide the fate of the future. When you are known to know the rules, people trust you to call the game. When you know the rules, you know where the rules are grey for your interpretation. Interpretation and perception is more important than truth in the modern society.

If anyone seen todays hearings, you would have seen him NOT answer questions again.

 

[Skyhunter]

You know, not to say there might not be legitimate concerns about Roberts, but you're sounding a bit like the people who campaigned against Al Smith in '28 because he was Catholic, saying the pope would be put in charge of the US.

Sorry, but I recently met someone from that side of the argument and this is what they seriously believe.

Does Roberts or Meese?

I don't know, I'll guess we'll see.

When Al Smith ran for president he did not have the catholic church advocating the creation of a catholic nation.

Pat Robertson ran for president and was a serious candidate.

June 20 issue - In 1988, the arrival of the religious right and social conservatism as formidable and entwined forces in the Republican Party was signaled when Pat Robertson received 25 percent of the vote in the Iowa presidential nominating caucuses, second to Bob Dole's 37 percent.

They already have the executive and legislative Branch's of the US government. With Roberts, and according to http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak12.htmlPriscilla Priscilla Owens to replace O'Conner, they will have the Judicial branch.

This scares me. It should scare you as well.

When was the last time a super power was run by a radical far right party that believed they had a moral authority to dare anything?

We are approaching that place again.

I might seem alarmist, but I call it like I see it.

 

[loseyourname]

Have you actually watched his hearings, though? I've been watching them for about the last six hours or so (I think they're finally about to end) and Roberts sounds like about the most reasonable, nicest, and impartial person I've ever heard speak. He's like a robot - far from Robertson or a raving religious nut of any sort. It's the senators that concern me; all of them, not just those on the right. Actually, DeWine and Durbin impressed me.

Another thing: One of the reasons I'm not concerned, and one of the reasons our nation has never come under the control of one party before, is that elected officials need to be periodically re-elected. If the Republican party honestly tried to turn the US into a Christian theocracy, they'd be gone. It isn't going to happen.

Then again, I don't worry about anything. Hold a gun to my head and I'll give you a hundred reasons that I should remain calm and optimistic.

 

[Skyhunter]

Then again, I don't worry about anything. Hold a gun to my head and I'll give you a hundred reasons that I should remain calm and optimistic.

I don't want a gun held to my head.

I have already resigned myself to Roberts, yes he seems so reasonable and intelligent, so does Scalia. He is going to present the best face he can. These hearings are not giving us a good insight into John Roberts, especially in the light that the White house is not fully releasing all his relevant papers.

[edit] Here is a quote that echos my sentiments.

There's no doubt that Roberts is dreadfully intelligent, and he's lucid to the point of creepiness. (One commentator pointed out that Roberts doesn't say "um.") There's also little doubt that he's nearly everything liberals fear. What stood out most about Roberts yesterday, however, was that he's a Washington specimen of the most distilled variety. He seems to have known since the age of two that he wished to be on the Supreme Court. He seems to have done nothing, ever, that would compromise this vision. His worldview seems to be untempered by failure and snugly confined within acceptable party lines. Most important, he knows how to say nothing at great length--which, these days, is an essential skill. It's unfortunate that we consistently reward public officials who play it entirely safe, but we can hardly blame them for noticing. Honesty can be costly, which may explain why there's nothing more fascinating than candor. It may also explain why there's nothing more boring than the Roberts confirmation hearings.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050912&s=frank091405