Also on MSNBC: Americans want Robert's position on abortion
This just in. Apparently the majority of Americans care about John Robert’s position on abortion. In related news, the majority of Americans also care about John Robert’s position on the Atkins diet, and the majority of Americans really want to know Roberts’s all-time top five desert island albums, should he ever be stranded with John Cusack.
Robert’s position on abortion doesn’t matter and shouldn’t matter to his being confirmed to the Supreme Court. Of course, questions about his judicial philosophy as a whole are entirely relevant, but Roberts would never have been approved to be on the Circuit Court in the first place if his judicial views were found to be unacceptable by the legal community.
Roberts’s nomination has already drawn cries that he should not be confirmed if his views are “outside the mainstream.” Not to sound elitist, but most Americans don’t have any real understanding of Constitutional law to begin with. The views of most lawyers, judges and legal scholars on Constitutional Law are probably outside the mainstream of a public that has little understanding of the complexity of legal issues. Of course, this is not to say the public in general has no role in the debate over legal issues. But judging a legal professional’s views based on an uninformed conception of law is a bit like judging a doctor without any expertise in medicine. Obviously, we’re all capable of pointing out the quacks, but clearly, John Roberts is no quack.
Case in point, Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade is a contentious legal issue, and the reason for that contention has nothing to do with the fact that abortion is contentious issue itself. The American public as a whole can tell you their views on abortion, but most people would have trouble articulating a legitimate legal rational as to why Roe v. Wade should either stand or be overturned.
The point is, as the lonely libertarian has noted time and time again, is that judges should be judged on their legal views and techniques, not on the results that they reach. And a pretextual look at Roberts's Constitutional methods should not be utilized as a means of determining his position on abortion.
Robert’s position on abortion doesn’t matter and shouldn’t matter to his being confirmed to the Supreme Court. Of course, questions about his judicial philosophy as a whole are entirely relevant, but Roberts would never have been approved to be on the Circuit Court in the first place if his judicial views were found to be unacceptable by the legal community.
Roberts’s nomination has already drawn cries that he should not be confirmed if his views are “outside the mainstream.” Not to sound elitist, but most Americans don’t have any real understanding of Constitutional law to begin with. The views of most lawyers, judges and legal scholars on Constitutional Law are probably outside the mainstream of a public that has little understanding of the complexity of legal issues. Of course, this is not to say the public in general has no role in the debate over legal issues. But judging a legal professional’s views based on an uninformed conception of law is a bit like judging a doctor without any expertise in medicine. Obviously, we’re all capable of pointing out the quacks, but clearly, John Roberts is no quack.
Case in point, Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade is a contentious legal issue, and the reason for that contention has nothing to do with the fact that abortion is contentious issue itself. The American public as a whole can tell you their views on abortion, but most people would have trouble articulating a legitimate legal rational as to why Roe v. Wade should either stand or be overturned.
The point is, as the lonely libertarian has noted time and time again, is that judges should be judged on their legal views and techniques, not on the results that they reach. And a pretextual look at Roberts's Constitutional methods should not be utilized as a means of determining his position on abortion.
posted by lonely libertarian at 7:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home