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
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on John Roberts' confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, where he likened his role to that of a baseball umpire, stating he merely "calls balls and strikes" without making laws. Key points include his emphasis on impartiality, his lack of a political agenda, and a controversial remark regarding the "so-called right to privacy." Participants express skepticism about his understanding of the judicial role, with some predicting he will be an activist chief justice. The discussion highlights concerns over the Senate's ability to assess nominees' jurisprudential views effectively.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the role of the Supreme Court in the U.S. legal system
  • Familiarity with judicial confirmation processes
  • Knowledge of common law principles
  • Awareness of the implications of judicial activism
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the concept of judicial activism and its historical context
  • Study the role of the Supreme Court in shaping U.S. law
  • Examine the implications of the "right to privacy" in legal cases
  • Review the transcripts of John Roberts' confirmation hearings for deeper insights
USEFUL FOR

Legal scholars, political analysts, law students, and anyone interested in the dynamics of judicial appointments and their impact on U.S. law and policy.

  • #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