We know that the Democrats want Judge Roberts to talk about his personal feelings on abortion, the right to die, and other issues.
We also know that Judge Roberts insists that he must be an "umpire" and therefore, can't comment on matters that might come up before the Court.
That's made the confirmation hearings on Roberts' nomination to become Chief Justice, something of a standoff that accrues to Roberts' advantage.
That's made for rather boring hearings, I suppose.
But there has been one intriguing line of questioning: That pursued by Senator Specter and recounted here.
When the courts are excoriated for "judicial activism," those complaining don't usually catalog infringements on the legislative branch, which they hold in as low esteem as the courts. Maybe lower.
Historically, it should be said, Congress has rarely been highly regarded by Americans. Today, for a whole lot of reasons, we seem to hold most governmental institutions in low regard, which doesn't bode well for a democracy. Specter's complaints against the Court then, aren't apt to create a public outcry. Though people may not care for activist judges, they're not likely to join a campaign to enhance congressional power in relation to the judiciary branch either.
All in all, this is an interesting example of the interplay and the very healthy tugging that the Framers foresaw when they incorporated the separation of powers into the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment