It seems that the Democrats don’t know how to form the Question they all desperately want answered. Consequently they are asking questions that are rather pathetic. The closest they came was when Durbin (I believe) stumbled about asking (essentially) what is it you believe? Do you believe that there is something behind the Law that would make you NOT represent a certain client? Would you find any client’s position repugnant and therefore reject the opportunity to represent them? (serious paraphrasing)
What the Dems were fumbling about looking for is likely this: does Roberts see anything behind the Law?
And that’s the question… Roberts finished up this morning saying, “I believe in the Rule of Law.”
But the question remains - is there something informing the Law? Does he believe that the Constitution is (as it’s been referred to) a “living” document?
What does Roberts believe?
Or is it simply that the Law is whatever the Powerful say it is?
Ultimately, in Roberts mind, is there law that is legalistically sound but UNJUST?
Ed:LM
Article comments
1 - Nancy
They're trying to get too specific, I think. He has said that he takes his references in legal rulings not from the bible but from his lawbooks; isn't that answering the general question? Oddly, they're all over the place about womens rights & abortion, but I haven't heard anyone ask about his belief in the sanctity of property. Given the recent eminent domain case in New London, I'm very surprised. Maybe I missed it?
2 - alethinos59
What I would have loved to hear is someone pinning him down on what his objections were to Griswold and not letting him slide on, "well, it should have been something that the State legislature handled," but rather, DOES this case and others, Lenord, e.g., push us into "discovering" those rights protected by the IXth? But those folks on the committee are rather gutless I think... Or foolish. Or both. I mean, come on! Ask him to DEFINE things, such as Griswold. Don't let him simply get out of it with "well, a strict interpretation of the Law..."
Anyway... thanks for posting Nancy...
3 - Nancy
I confess my ignorance: what is 'Griswold'? Not being a lawyer (altho sometimes I like to think I am) I can't really pin down issue by case names. Thanks.
4 - alethinos59
Griswold -v- Connecticut, (1965)
You can start here...
That's a quick review... Gotta run for the moment...
5 - Victor Lana
I don't know what to make of this situation. On one hand, our government is neatly divided into law making, administrative, and law enforcing branches; yet there seems to be almost an infringement on the nature of the dynamics if one party fails to uphold its end.
Who is right or wrong here? Roberts obviously can get by with his answers, but is it right to say the Democrats' questions are insufficient? Aren't his answers also lacking?
"Tis a muddle indeed. A muddle indeed."
Quotation from Dickens' HARD TIMES. I think it's apropos considering the days we're living in.