John Roberts Baseball Umpire or Supreme Court Judge?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter outsider
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Baseball Judge
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around John Roberts' analogy of a Supreme Court Justice as an umpire in baseball, exploring the implications of this comparison on the role of the Supreme Court in making laws versus interpreting them. Participants reflect on the nature of judicial authority, the concept of common law, and the perceived political implications of Roberts' statements during his confirmation hearings.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that Roberts' analogy of being an umpire suggests a limited view of judicial power, implying he does not fully grasp the scope of the Supreme Court's role.
  • Others counter that the Supreme Court does not make laws but interprets them, suggesting that Roberts' comments reflect a misunderstanding of judicial responsibilities.
  • A participant expresses skepticism about Roberts' humility, suggesting it may be "false humility" and predicting he will be an activist chief justice.
  • Concerns are raised regarding Roberts' comments on the "so-called right to privacy," with some questioning the legal basis for such a right and interpreting his phrasing as dismissive.
  • Some participants defend the umpire analogy, suggesting it accurately reflects the practice of common law, while others express concern that it may mask a more conservative agenda.
  • There is a discussion about the influence of political pressures during confirmation hearings, with references to specific senators advising Roberts on how to respond to questions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the role of the Supreme Court, with no consensus on whether Roberts' analogy is appropriate or indicative of his judicial philosophy. Disagreement exists regarding the interpretation of his comments and their implications for his potential as a chief justice.

Contextual Notes

Some participants acknowledge a lack of familiarity with the details of Roberts' hearings, which may affect their interpretations. The discussion also reflects varying levels of understanding regarding the relationship between judicial interpretation and law-making.

  • #31
loseyourname said:
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.

T. A. Frank said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
8K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
13K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
7K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K