Comments on: Elevating the Debate http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1038 BTC News: News, politics, opinion and satire Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:52:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: PubliusToo http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1038/comment-page-1#comment-11290 PubliusToo Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:45:43 +0000 http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1038#comment-11290 Your argument against the confirmation of Judge Roberts seems rather weak to me. First, his experience as a judge is certainly not inconsequential; he has served for 2 years as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal, one of the highest federal judge positions in the country. Similarly, his experience as an advocate in private and government practice is very impressive. He is widely recognized as one of the top appellate lawyers in the country. This high level experience is hardly akin to hiring a convenience store manager as the president of IBM. Second, the legal positions maintained by his clients in litigation or appeals do not necessarily reflect his views as a judge. A lawyer must advocate the positions of his or her clients, not his personal feelings on an issue. The solicitor general’s office, for example, must represent the interests of its clients, viz. the various agencies who are parties or amicus curiae before the Supreme Court, not the personal views of its attorneys or even of the solicitor general. Third, he has earned a good reputation as a temperate and fair-minded advocate. Unlike Justice Scalia, for example, Judge Roberts has a judicial temperament important to the administration of justice. A judicial temperament is necessary for litigants to fell like they are receiving a fair hearing, even if they lose the case. The appearance of fairness is very important for society to continue to accept the judiciary’s role, especially since the judiciary must ultimately rely on the executive branch to enforce the courts’ decisions and on the legislative branch to pay for the courts’ budgets. Finally, if membership in the Federalist Society should disqualify an attorney from becoming a judge, then membership in the ACLU should also disqualify an attorney. Your comparison of the Federalist Society to the Nazi party or the Ku Klux Klan is, quite frankly, at least hyperbole, if not downright silly. You are really trying to criticize his conservative leanings. This, of course, is fair game, but it will almost certainly not stop his confirmation. Ultimately, you hope to tag Judge Roberts with the all beliefs espoused by members of the Federalists Society. However, such “guilt by association” is unlikely to hold up under scrutiny. Among other things, I suspect that his written court opinions, as well as his legal briefs, both of which are public records, do not always conform to the majority view held by the Federalist Society membership. In the end, Judge Roberts will be confirmed with or without a cloture vote, and the personal attacks on his ability and character will more likely than not only rebound to hurt his detractors, not him or the administration. Your argument against the confirmation of Judge Roberts seems rather weak to me. First, his experience as a judge is certainly not inconsequential; he has served for 2 years as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal, one of the highest federal judge positions in the country. Similarly, his experience as an advocate in private and government practice is very impressive. He is widely recognized as one of the top appellate lawyers in the country. This high level experience is hardly akin to hiring a convenience store manager as the president of IBM.

Second, the legal positions maintained by his clients in litigation or appeals do not necessarily reflect his views as a judge. A lawyer must advocate the positions of his or her clients, not his personal feelings on an issue. The solicitor general’s office, for example, must represent the interests of its clients, viz. the various agencies who are parties or amicus curiae before the Supreme Court, not the personal views of its attorneys or even of the solicitor general.

Third, he has earned a good reputation as a temperate and fair-minded advocate. Unlike Justice Scalia, for example, Judge Roberts has a judicial temperament important to the administration of justice. A judicial temperament is necessary for litigants to fell like they are receiving a fair hearing, even if they lose the case. The appearance of fairness is very important for society to continue to accept the judiciary’s role, especially since the judiciary must ultimately rely on the executive branch to enforce the courts’ decisions and on the legislative branch to pay for the courts’ budgets.

Finally, if membership in the Federalist Society should disqualify an attorney from becoming a judge, then membership in the ACLU should also disqualify an attorney. Your comparison of the Federalist Society to the Nazi party or the Ku Klux Klan is, quite frankly, at least hyperbole, if not downright silly. You are really trying to criticize his conservative leanings. This, of course, is fair game, but it will almost certainly not stop his confirmation. Ultimately, you hope to tag Judge Roberts with the all beliefs espoused by members of the Federalists Society. However, such “guilt by association” is unlikely to hold up under scrutiny. Among other things, I suspect that his written court opinions, as well as his legal briefs, both of which are public records, do not always conform to the majority view held by the Federalist Society membership. In the end, Judge Roberts will be confirmed with or without a cloture vote, and the personal attacks on his ability and character will more likely than not only rebound to hurt his detractors, not him or the administration.

]]>