Knowledge - Deconstruction Blinkers
Life Site reports on the many quetions Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts is receiving. What is interesting though is the unhappiness that many groups have with his answers. From the report
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America was not happy with Roberts' answers. She complained, "John Roberts failed to state whether he believes the right to privacy includes a woman's right to choose as recognized in Roe v. Wade." Ralph Neas, head of the notoriously pro-abortion People of the American Way also complained about Roberts' abortion issue answers stating, "He's obviously playing a game of dodgeball."
Responding to a challenge that his Catholic faith could serve as an impediment to impartiality in matters of morality, Roberts responded that, “There’s nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedent of the court faithfully under the principles of stare decisis.”
Cleaver Ruse also weighed in on the matter of Roberts’ Christianity. “Unfortunately, Judge Roberts’ religion has already been brought up on this first day of hearings. Judge Roberts testified that nothing in his personal views based on faith or other sources would prevent him from applying the law faithfully. This should be the end of the matter, for any interrogation into Judge Roberts' faith would be tantamount to an unconstitutional religious test.”
Roberts, in introductory remarks made Monday, said, “Mr. Chairman, I come before the committee with no agenda, I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes,” he said. “Justices 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 ballgame to see the umpire.”
Think about this for a second. Roberts comments are saying that he plans on interpreting the law apart from his personal views. However to many of the left, including the pro-abortion crowd, interpreting the law by itself is not what they are after. They are proponents of a living consistitution where the document is reinterpreted based on the judges beliefs about society.
So really, when Roberts says he will simply try to apply the law as written, it will fail to placate the left/pro-abortion crowd specifically because
1) They do not want the law interpreted this way, and
2) There own ideas about how to interpret preclude the notion of not using your own beliefs.
Point 2) is worth a little extra attention however, because if they believe that law should be interpreted as a 'living' document, they are obviously unhappy that someone with different beliefs than them should be the one doing the interpretation, but they have no grounds on which to judge between their beliefs and John Roberts. There can be no immutable legal principles in this line of thinking, so why should John Robert's views be less valid than theirs?