Conservative Blogger: Equal Justice Under Law...

So, the hearings to confirm John Roberts as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court have begun.

I have to go on the record as having a problem with Roberts. I don't think he's earned the nomination. He's the "new guy," for cryin' out loud. There are other people who've been serving the Court notably and honorably for years and this strikes me as a slap in the face to them. Were I President---which would be horrible for all of you, but pretty cool for me---I'd select Antonin Scalia. I'm not the President, though, and the guy we've got says that Roberts is the right person for the job.

I'm worried that he could turn out to be the next David Souter. We just don't know whether Roberts is the kind of Justice that Bush says he is. The last thing we need is another "wolf in sheep's clothing" like Souter.

Regardless, he is the nominee and he will be confirmed.

Throughout the past two days, the Libs on the Senate Judiciary Committee have tried to paint Roberts as someone who doesn't want to answer questions. Why? Because these issues may come before the Court in the future and it would be unethical for Roberts to give his opinion or discuss how he might rule. This is an age old trick of the Libs: ask questions they know can never be answered and whine that the nominee isn't being forthcoming.

Well, based on the news out of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today, you can bet that this topic is going to come up before these hearings are done and that the Democrats will try, in vein, to use it to discredit Roberts.

In case you didn't know, Michael Newdow is back. Who's Newdow? He's the man who unsuccessfully tried to have the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court, who refused to hear the case since Newdow didn't have any parental rights.

Newdow was back before the 9th today where U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is unconstitutional. In his ruling, Karlton stated that the phrase "under God" violates students right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." As a result, a restraining order has been slapped on the school where Michael Newdow's daughter attends her classes preventing them from reciting the pledge in school.

Supporters of Newdow say that they want to finally force this issue before the Court so they have to make a decision...but the Court already has. When the Supreme Court refused to hear Newdow's case, they stated the following:

...Through the Pledge policy, the State has not created or maintained any religious establishment, and neither has it granted government authority to an existing religion. The Pledge policy does not expose anyone to the legal coercion associated with an established religion. Further, no other free-exercise rights are at issue. It follows that religious liberty rights are not in question and that the Pledge policy fully comports with the Constitution.

Not only did the Supreme Court say that they're not going to overturn the Pledge, they also voted 8-0 against hearing Newdow's case. The new wrinkle in this is the timing of the ruling.

I don't think it's coincidence that this particular case had this particular decision at this particular time. The 9th Circuit has a long history of activism from the bench and has had many a decision reversed by the Supreme Court. This is coming up now for one reason and one reason only: it's because there's a vacancy on the Court.

The Libs are going to hope to do two things: they obviously hope to get this case before the forthcoming session of the Court, but they also hope to use this as a tool in the Roberts hearings. For two days, Kennedy and Biden have done nothing but bloviate endlessly and accuse Roberts of being misleading.

I mean, it's an outright farce that someone like Ted Kennedy can presume to sit in judgment of anyone's character. Regardless, here's how it will go: Biden (or some other unabashedly liberal senator) will bring the case up before Roberts and ask about the particulars. Roberts will oblige them and explain some of the minutiae of the case. The senator will then redirect and ask whether or Roberts agrees with the Court's unanimous decision to not hear the Newdow case, and Roberts will give the same answer he's given for two days--that he can't speculate on an issue that may come before the court.

This is a losing tactic for the Libs. They're unable to discredit him. They're unable to make him look uncooperative. They're unable to go after his qualifications as a jurist and they're not going to stop his confirmation. If they were smart, they'd cut the hearings short in time to get Roberts on the bench for when the Court starts it's new session on October 3 and congratulate themselves on their own bipartisan efforts. They won't and they'll look uncooperative and like they're trying to block Roberts for no good reason.

Maybe they'll figure it out before the next round of hearings.

William Smith
ConservativeBlogger.com

Posted by WilliamSmith on September 14, 2005 03:50 PM to Conservative Blogger