He gets it
While listening to Judge John Roberts speak during his televised confirmation hearings this afternoon, I found myself moved and so deeply encouraged that I actually applauded at the end of his brief 6~minute speech. The man did not reference notes, he did not attempt to cloak himself. Instead, he laid himself bare and announced that he has "No Agenda" to bring with him as he seeks to serve our nation as our highest Judicial appointment. Please read the transcript of his speech and discern his compelling authenticity for yourself. The words spoken by this Judge today genuinely uplifted me and gave me boosted hope for our American judicial future.
This man gets it.
He understands the stark (and seemingly obvious, but not in California) difference between being a judge and being a legislator. He understands the difference between UPHOLDING and APPLYING the laws of the land versus actually CREATING them. He understands that Judges should not be used as political currency or weapons. He understands and has lived integrity from the bench.
He gets it.
Praise God that this clarion voice of reason whose stunning historical application of that reason as a judge will cause him to inevitably join our incredibly gifted Supreme Court as it's Chief Justice. I find him utterly brilliant not for what he promises to be. But for what he promises NOT to be. We must not be legislating from the bench. Thank God this man shares recognition of that dangerous and un-American current trend and stands solidly against it. May the confirmation of Judge John Roberts be swift and universally celebrated.
~~~~~
~~~~~
Dear Mr. Roberts,
When you are named Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of America, would you please teach a course called "The Proper Role and Authority of Judges 101"? And would you please require attendance of the ENTIRE 9th Circuit Court of Appeals here in California? Their long, disturbing history of vigilante rulings and over 90% overturn rate indicate their longstanding belief that their central purpose as judges is to inflict their individual political and social visions onto the people despite legal precedence, election results, logic, and/or reason. What a travesty. We need more judges like you, sir, to re-populate the benches in across the land, which have somehow evolved from referees of the law to dictators of im/morality, absent legitimate legal basis or the consensus of the people.
Thank you,
Held Hostage by Judicial Egos in California
2 Comments:
I have a question: How is the Chief position determined? And, wasn't his appointment started because of SDO's retirement, not because of Rehnquist? I'm confused but not entirely paying attention either.
Hi Hero!
YES, Judge Roberts was nominated to fill SDOC's spot which will be vacant once she retires, as she wishes to do ASAP.
But when W.Rehnquist died, President Bush nominated an already-in-process-of-being-confirmed Judge Roberts to take the now vacant Chief's position and has stated he would like to see Roberts formally seated by the start of the new term, which I believe is October 3.
There are likely many reasons for this upgrade in Robert's nomination, all of them legitimate and excellent. Sandra Day O'Connor has promised to stay on until a replacement can be found and confirmed. Rehnquist obviously cannot and his Chief's vacany is immediate. Also, Roberts is young enough to serve the Court long-term. If we look at the ages of the other Justices, there are likely going to be future retirements/ end of terms to anticipate relatively soon. Justice Stevens is 85. Ginsberg is 72. Kennedy and Scalia are each 70. Breyer and Souter are in their late 60's.
All Justices of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President, who then sends the nomination to the Senate for confirmation. Once confirmed, their appointment is for life and they can only be removed by death, resignation, or impeachment.
Hopefully that helps? I am WAY invested in this process and find it fascinating and heartening this time around, so far.
Post a Comment
<< Home