Argument That Has No Clothes

[K-W]

Published on Thursday, September 22, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
Argument That Has No Clothes
by Andrew Bard Schmookler

Hasn't anyone noticed that this argument has no clothes?

I'm talking about the notion -maintained by both parties when it suits their purpose-that it would be inappropriate for a judicial nominee to answer substantive questions about his or her views on important constitutional issues.

...

Set aside the question of whether it's OK for these nominees to have opinions, so long as they don't express them. Or whether we're supposed to believe that a clever and experienced attorney, such as our most recent self-censoring nominee, John Roberts, has somehow managed to engage the basic issues of his field on behalf of his clients without ever forming an opinion of his own.

What's patently ridiculous, rather, is the argument that a judicial nominee would disqualify himself from rendering unbiased decisions in the future because he expressed his opinions on such issues now. When John Roberts takes a seat on the Court, he will be surrounded by eight other justices who have been writing opinions on countless issues for years. If John Roberts could reasonably be accused of prejudging potential future cases by articulating candidly his views on past cases and issues, then --by that same logic-- so would all these sitting judges.



This ones been eating away at my brain for weeks. The whole not answering questions thing is so completely irrational it blows my mind.

[yurbud]

1. I agree with you. He would not be bound by what he said

but it would show how he thought about things.

[dubyaD40web]

2. You forgot the link:

Here it is:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0922-24.htm

[K-W]

3. Oh, thanks. EOM