Judge Robert Bork and David Rivkin have a wonderful Op/Ed in today's issue of USA Today which notes that various Democratic Senators, especially members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have completely forgotten the true role of the Judicial branch which is to "interpret" the law not "legislate" the law. You'd think that the folks who write this bill and that, pass a myraid of laws and pass out so much pork they would at least know a thing or to about the whole concept of "separation of powers." Well then again, these same folks are the one's who kept on asking John Roberts how he felt personally about this issue or that as well as stating that Senators or Congressmen can't get elected without revealing their opinions so why shouldn't Roberts do the same. Well, thankfully Judge Bork and David Rivkin seem to set the record straight on the appropriate job of a justice with the following paragraphs:
Yet nobody, including Roberts himself, can or should know how he would rule in a specific case, until that case comes before him. Having judges behave as politicians, seeking political support from public commitments concerning their future votes, is utterly incompatible with the proper judicial role. Going down this path would fatally undermine judicial independence and legitimacy.I just hope that the nomination of Judge Roberts and this great Op/Ed by Bork and Rivkin will start a national conversation amongst the American people on the true role of our justices. Though a considerable amount of the Senate Democrats throw up broadsides against the comfirmation of a justice with a judicial temperment of Judge John Roberts, who plays the role of an umpire, they just only make themselves look like folks who want to extend their legislative powers onto the Supreme Court and thus sally the third branch of our government. Me thinks that they doth protest too much. I'm willing to bet ya that the American people are inclined towards Bork and Rivkin's arguments but all you have to do is look at the 2004 Election results to see that the people of the US wanted a President who chooses judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. So bring on the next pick Mr. President, we look forward to your choice.
In fact, far from being about Roberts or any future nominee, the pyrotechnics of the Senate hearings are attributable to the fact that the philosophic gulf between our two political parties has grown vast Â and nowhere more so than with respect to the federal judiciary. Most Republicans want courts that are legal institutions, not political bodies. Democrats, on the other hand, insist on courts devoted to specific policy outcomes (invariably items on the liberal agenda).
Not content with helping transform the judiciary into the most important player in domestic affairs, and most certainly in cultural trends, Democrats push for courts that are activist in foreign and defense policy, micromanaging, for example, the treatment of captured enemy combatants.