Patterico's Pontifications

9/13/2005

The Stupidest Question Heard Today

Filed under: Judiciary,Morons — Patterico @ 5:51 pm



I didn’t see all the hearings today yet, nor have I yet reviewed all the transcripts. But I have a pretty good idea which was the stupidest question that anybody asked all day, and you can read it here:

KOHL: Judge, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we all saw that those who suffered the most were those who had not been able to take advantage of the great opportunities that our great country has to offer. As we found out, those without employment opportunities and educational opportunities simply did not have the means to escape the storm and the flooding.

As you seek to become the head of the judicial branch, as you seek the position of chief justice of the United States of America, what role would you play in making right the wrongs revealed by Katrina? And what role do you and the judicial branch play in making sure that we as a nation keep on moving forward toward providing equal opportunity to all Americans?

What a dumb question. Roberts tactfully chose to answer the second one only:

ROBERTS: The last part of your question, Senator, is of course really what’s carved on the entrance to the Supreme Court, equal justice under law. That is the commitment physically embodied in the Supreme Court, and it’s the commitment in the Constitution.

And I think the most important thing the Supreme Court can do, and the judicial branch can do, is to uphold the rule of law.

That is the — I tried to point this out in my statement yesterday.

That is the key to making all the rights that are in the Constitution, all the rights that legislators may confer on citizens, that’s the key to making them meaningful.

The difference between our system and our Constitution and the Soviet constitution that President Reagan used to talk about — it has wonderful rights in it, too; it didn’t mean a thing because there was not an independent Supreme Court, an independent judiciary to support the rights.

We do have that, and that’s the reason that we have been able to make progress in the area of rights and not had just empty paper promises.

So to the extent you are talking about the injustices in society and the discrimination in society, the best thing the courts can do is enforce the rule of law and provide a level playing field for people to come in and vindicate their rights and enforce the rule of law.

But as often happens with dumb questions, the questioner really wants an answer — and Sen. Kohl really wanted an answer to his silly Katrina question:

KOHL: In spite of all of our laws and all of our rules, we still saw what happened down in New Orleans. And the people who were left behind were people who had not had educational or employment opportunities.

And the question I asked was whether you, as a person who aspires to be the chief justice of the United States, sees a particular role other than continuing the role that you observe we are following now, particular role for improving our ability to respond to the needs of those people who live under those circumstances?

Roberts, I’m sure, was thinking: “Not my job, dummy. That’s your job.” But instead, he answered quite patiently:

ROBERTS: Well, the courts are, of course, passive institutions. We hear cases that are brought before us. We don’t go out and bring cases. We don’t have the constitutional authority to execute the law. We don’t have the constitutional authority to make the law.

Our obligation is to decide the cases that are presented. Now I’m confident, just in the nature of things, that there will be cases presented arising out of that horrible disaster, of all sorts. And many of those will be federal cases, I’m sure. Others will be in the state courts.

And again, the obligation of the federal judiciary and the state judiciary is to make sure they provide a place where people can have their claims, their litigation decided fairly and efficiently, according to the rule of law.

That’s the appropriate role for the judicial branch.

It sounds like it came from Ace’s parody from the other day — but it didn’t.

5 Responses to “The Stupidest Question Heard Today”

  1. Are rights something that, as Mr, Jefferson penned in his Declaration, we inherently have, something that governments are instituted to protect and preserve, or are they, as Roberts said, (at least partially) conferred on citizens by legislators? Is the citizenry thus dependent on the government to (again, at least to some extent) grant rights to it?

    Roofer (0f0177)

  2. Wednesday Specials

    Stop the ACLU says Thank You. Althouse found a moment of privacy. Beldar will not stare down precedent. Michele asks for advice. Patterico disproves the notion that the only stupid question is a question that isn’t asked. If you have…

    Cafe Oregano (ad1416)

  3. Ick.

    This should be exhibit A for conservatives who (wongly) believe that nominees should be forced to disclose their specific legal views in these hearings (XRLQ, are you reading this)? The modern confirmation process is broken. There is no reason that nominees should be subject to any questioning by the Senate — at all.

    Spoons (be25c9)

  4. […] Weds a.m. Update: Patterico and I appear to be on the same wavelength on this stupid question. By: Sister Toldjah in: Politics, Law/Judiciary | Email this post    Trackback URI for this post: http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2005/09/13/the-politics-of-pandering-and-posturing/trackback/ » Comments […]

    Sister Toldjah » The politics of pandering and posturing (WEDS UPDATE) (a936fc)

  5. Spoons, I don’t disagree that Roberts shouldn’t answer questions Ginsburg didn’t have to answer. Fair’s fair, after all, and I’d rather see both sides adhere to a silly rule than have one side benefit from that silly rule while the other must abide by a more sensible one. However, I do disagree with your apparent view that the Senate should be largely stripped of its advise and consent role. If you think Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were bad, just imagine how much worse things might have been if Clinton had known he could appoint anyone he wanted to the bench. He might have appointed those two anyway, but more likely, he’d have appointed the likes of Bill Lann Lee and Lani Guinier instead. And that’s assuming the Senate still got to hold an up or down vote on the candidates whose qualifications they would longer be in any position to judge. If that power were taken away as well, half of the Ninth Circuit would have been promoted to the Supreme Court during the Clinton years.

    Xrlq (6c76c4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0707 secs.