I Am Curious Cornyn (Roberts' Hearing Edition)

Here's a couple of pieces summarizing the first day of John Roberts' Supreme Court nomination hearing. Didn't catch much of it, but it doesn't seem like it's providing the ideological sparks that the Bork or Thomas hearings did (though there's always that possibility).

Some senatorial pronouncements:

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas: "All of us are curious. But just because we're curious doesn't mean our curiosity should be satisfied. You have no obligation to tell us how you will rule on any issue that might come before you if you sit on the Supreme Court."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.: "One of the most important issues that needs to be addressed by you is the constitutional right to privacy. I'm concerned by a trend on the court to limit this right and thereby to curtail the autonomy that we have fought for and achieved . . . It would be very difficult . . . for me to vote to confirm someone whom I knew would overturn Roe v. Wade, because I remember . . . what it was like when abortion was illegal in America."

Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio: "Many Americans are concerned when they see the court strike down laws protecting the aged, the disabled and women who are the victims of violence. . . . And many fear our court is making policy when it repeatedly strikes down laws passed by elected members of Congress and elected members of the state legislatures. Judges need to restrict themselves to the proper resolution of the case before them. They need to avoid the temptation to set broad policy."

More here.

And here's Roberts' opening statement, in which he seems to be communing with DeWine and throwing in a baseball metaphor that leaves me a bit uneasy for some reason:

Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them.

The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.

But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.

Whole thing here. Hmm, then again, the Supreme Court is more like the baseball commissioner's office, isn't it? It's not just a bunch of umpiires, but that which after there is no further appeal, right? (Other than back to Congress and/or the American people). Obviously, as the Cherokee could tell you, winning in the Supreme Court doesn't necessarily guarantee you anything, but the judgues there clearly carry more weight than, say, the infield umps at your kids' Little League games too.

Comments

[Max]

The baseball analogy works if you consider the "rules" to be the Constitution. The judges as umps enforces the rules as written in the Constitution.

[joe]

The Commissioner's Office is SCOTUS, POTUS, and CongRUS in one.

[MP]

Max,

SCOTUS's responsibility is not simply limited to verifying the constitutionality of laws. In fact, that's a small (but very important) part of what it does.

[Mr. Wilson]

"Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them."

Obviously not spoken by an individual with any umpiring experience.

[thoreau]

I find the SCOTUS-baseball commissioner analogies particularly apt when you consider that Bud Selig is a Milwaukeean, as was Rehnquist.

Coincidence? I think not.

[David]

The Commissioner's Office is SCOTUS, POTUS, and CongRUS in one.

Selig needs to get the permissions of corporate interests(the owners), Labor(the players), before making decisions that affect the people(the fans). I guess the baseball analogy isn't inapt after all.

[madpad]

The baseball thing must've been a hi-five to Bush.

As for the Umpire thing, the trend I've noticed - on both right & left sides, I might add - seems to be more about deferring to the authority of the government over the sactity of the rights of the individual.

If umpires = judges, players = citizens, laws = rules and fairness = justice then government must = owners.

Shouldn't the players be the owners?

And if the writings of the consitutional framers are any indicator, the ammendments serve to protect the citizen/players from the government.

What are the ammendments if not a specific list fo things that the government can't do? Rights on which they cannot infringe.

Who protects the players when government is the one breaking the rules?

And unless I miss it's purpose, isn't the U.S. Supreme Court's primary mission to protect players/citizens when the umpires/judges make a bad call?

[crimethink]

Actually I think if the judges are umpires, in this analogy the rules are the Constitution, and the players are elected officials, since it's their actions that are judged against the Constitution/rules.

As for the people? Well, we're the fans, whose influence is limited to cheering or booing as we slurp our overpriced beer, foolishly believing that this is "our" team in any real sense of the word.

[swill]

I like this unlimited Right to Privacy of which Senator Feinstein opines. From whence in the Constitution does that shadow emanate? Then of course there is Senator "Spill" DeWine, in whom, apparently, the Constitution endows unlimited rather than enumerated power. The Supreme Court is hardly the only institution in serious need of "avoid(ing) the temptation to set broad policy".

[madpad]

Well said, crimethink, and in a fashion that both brutally and elegantly underscores my own post.

There needs only to add something about steriod use for this analogy to be complete.

steriod abuse = to infidelity, corruption or incompetence

[madpad]

sorry...that's "steroid"

[madpad]

thank goodness the Patriot Act is narrow and specific enough NOT to be considered "broad policy."

Oops...my bad...it isn't.

[crimethink]

madpad,

Thanks. Being a Cubs fan helps one to be cynical about baseball analogies in general...

[Glenn]

madpad,

players/managers/owners/commisioners=government. Fans=citizens.

The difference is that it is harder to change a rule in baseball than it is to change or add a law.

I wish people would get as impassioned about laws that take away individual rights and violate the constitution as baseball fans do when you change the fundemental rules of baseball.

[MP]

I like this unlimited Right to Privacy of which Senator Feinstein opines. From whence in the Constitution does that shadow emanate?

The Ninth amendment and the evolution of Natural Rights theory.

[crimethink]

There is no unlimited right to anything in the Constitution, since rights of different individuals often come into conflict. My right to free speech is limited by your right to life, when my speech creates an imminent danger to your life ("Fire!" in a theater, etc).

Likewise, when the right to privacy of a pregnant woman comes into conflict with the right to life of the child in her womb, one of these rights must be violated.

[John]

You have to understand. You have a guy up there who is regarded as one of the best oral advocates in the country. Love him or hate him, no one can deny that Roberts is a very smart guy who is talking to a bunch preening jackasses of moderate to low intelligence who got to their positions by being born to the right family and not being able to do much productive work outside going around to political cocktail parties and beging for campaign money. With that in mind, you have to give Roberts some slack for putting things in simple terms, using one sylabol words, and talking in a way that even the simplest can understand. Considering the limited mental abilities of his audience, the umpire analogy was a pretty good answer.

[swill]

I understand that there is no unlimited right to Privacy. I am not even sure there is a limited one. As for movie in a crowded firehouse, that's really more of a one-off. This is all about power. Senators from both parties are concerned that there may be an actual check on their unlimited authority to interject themselves into my sovereignty and self-determination.

I am all for the natural law debate, but I doubt that an elected official is. I was just intrigued that Senator Feinstein is concerned about "curtail(ing) the autonomy that we have fought for and achieved". You do not fight for rights, they are either there or not; or you amend the Constitution. You fight for their enforcement, not their emanation.

[Kwix]

Not a danged thing to do with Roberts, but this gets me,"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.:One of the most important issues that needs to be addressed by you is the constitutional right to privacy."

Umm this is the same Sen. Feinstein who just sponsored a budget amendment to restrict the sale of cold medicine to behind the counter pharamcies with presentation of an ID and signature, right??

[ed]

Baseball, hell.
More like cricket.

[MP]

You do not fight for rights, they are either there or not; or you amend the Constitution.

Natural rights are not obvious. My issues with Senator blowhard is that she wraps herself in the cloak of a "right to privacy" but when push comes to shove (the drug war) has no interest in actually supporting said right. Typical political hypocrite.

[Warren]

The, "I'm only going to enforce the rules" line is a pure canard. What a line of crap that is. No matter what he does, he can always claim he's 'just enforcing the rules'. For instance, on the one hand there's the "congress shall make no law" rule, and on the other there's whatever rule congress passed into law. If Roberts likes congress' rule he'll enforce that one, if not he'll enforce the one in the constitution. Even if he's makes up a totally new rule, he can claim that he's only doing so because its necessary to enforce some other rule (justified by logic so contorted that only the most brilliant of legal minds, conditioned by years of practicing at the bar, could have conceived it).

[John]

Warren,

What is he to say other than what you rightly point out is a meaningless response of "I will just follow the rules?" The guy cannot under the tenents of judicial ethics comment on how would rule on a particular case. Further, if he just told the truth and said, look, here is what I believe XYZ, in plain blunt terms, he would be crucified by his opponents. The whole exercise is a mad waste of time. The truth is no one, not even Roberts really knows what he will do once on the Court. Earl Warren was supposed to be a conservative, so was David Suter. All these hearings should concern is whether the nominee is a crook or woefully disqualified. Anything else is just intellectual masterbation.

[John]

Warren,

What is he to say other than what you rightly point out is a meaningless response of "I will just follow the rules?" The guy cannot under the tenents of judicial ethics comment on how would rule on a particular case. Further, if he just told the truth and said, look, here is what I believe XYZ, in plain blunt terms, he would be crucified by his opponents. The whole exercise is a mad waste of time. The truth is no one, not even Roberts really knows what he will do once on the Court. Earl Warren was supposed to be a conservative, so was David Suter. All these hearings should concern is whether the nominee is a crook or woefully disqualified. Anything else is just intellectual masterbation.

[John]

Warren,

What is he to say other than what you rightly point out is a meaningless response of "I will just follow the rules?" The guy cannot under the tenents of judicial ethics comment on how would rule on a particular case. Further, if he just told the truth and said, look, here is what I believe XYZ, in plain blunt terms, he would be crucified by his opponents. The whole exercise is a mad waste of time. The truth is no one, not even Roberts really knows what he will do once on the Court. Earl Warren was supposed to be a conservative, so was David Suter. All these hearings should concern is whether the nominee is a crook or woefully disqualified. Anything else is just intellectual masterbation.

[Portlander]

Stop with the government-as-baseball analogy already. It doesn't work. The proper analogy is government-as-fizzbin.