Law professor Tung Yin, who is not a conservative or a supporter of President Bush's, reacts negatively and logically to a letter signed by more than one-hundred legal scholars urging John Roberts' rejection by the Senate. The letter (to which Yin links) argues that the President should nominate people to the Court whose philosophy diverges from the President's. (I found Yin's post through Ann Althouse's blog site.)
Yin is right, I believe. Whether one voted for Bush or not, I think all should acknowledge a fundamental principle of our system of government: Elections mean something.
Had John Kerry been elected last year, I would have fully expected him to have nominated persons to the Supreme Court whose views were broadly consistent with his own. That would have been both his right as President and his obligation to those who voted for him.
Among the reasons we have elections is so that voters can decide into whose hands to repose responsibility for nominating judges (the President) and confirming or rejecting those nominees (the Senate).
Once a president is elected, nobody should be surprised when she or he nominates someone whose basic philosophy is the same as the President's. Nor should anybody suggest that presidents have some obligation to nominate to the court persons whose views differ from their own. That's an absurdly stupid notion.
As is true of several other public discussions these days, people seem to have a woefully inadequate understanding of the Constitution. If the letter cited by Tung Yin is any indication, it appears that the misinformed includes some law professors.
Again: Elections mean something. I'm indifferent to Judge Roberts' nomination. But if the opponents of John Roberts want to get people they find more philosophically sympathetic to be nominated for service on the courts, they need to win elections.
No comments:
Post a Comment