Reading the Tea Leaves

Judge John Roberts returned a questionaire to the Senate and everyone is speculating what his statement means. Let me highlight the critical parts of this:

Roberts echoed the views of President Bush in describing his judicial philosophy. Roberts said that he views the role of judges as “limited” and that they “do not have a commission to solve society’s problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law….”

Roberts wrote in his statement to the committee that the proper exercise of the judicial role “in our constitutional system requires a degree of institutional and personal modesty and humility” and said it is “not part of the judicial function to make the law….”

Now, this puts him in contrast to the justices who decided they didn’t like Sodomy laws so they went beyond the Constitution to ban them and decided it was time for the US to catch up with the rest of the world and ban the juvenile death penalty. Roberts answer is, “Sorry, we’re just hear to decide the law not to write it.”

The big concern coming out of this is Roberts’ statement that he’d respect established precedents. In regards to Roe, that presents a problem, but I don’t read that he’s dedicated to slavishly following bad precedents, but there’s truth that the court does need to keep to some established rulings, particularly in regards to commerce. People can have a Constitution that changes when a justice on the court does. Elsewise, you don’t have a Constitution. You have unelected lawmaking.

The only thing I really disagree with the Judge on is this:

Responding to a question about judicial activism, Roberts said, “When the other branches of government exceed their constitutionally-mandated limits, the courts can act to confine them to the proper bounds. It is judicial self-restraint, however, that confines judges to their proper constitutional responsibilities.”

So the judges are on the honor system? Checks and balances are for everyone!

—–