Saturday, September 24, 2005
A CURMUDGEONLY LETTER TO SENATOR BARAK OBAMA
Dear Senator Obama:
I read today that you intend to vote "no" on the confirmation of John Roberts to the position of Chief Justice of the United States. The reason you supplied was that your study of Roberts' legal career reveals that "he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak."
Far apart from being an unfair and inaccurate assessment of Judge Roberts' career, I find it stunning that a Harvard Law graduate and former University of Chicago law professor believes the function of the legal system is to stand up for the weak against the strong -- as though the courts are little more than a great weapon with which David can slay Goliath without regard for the merits of David's grievances -- rather than weigh the constitutionality and applicability of the law from one case to the next. By your reasoning no government lawyer -- government being the strongest institution in the nation, generally pursuing its interests against weaker targets -- is fit to serve in a judicial capacity. Either that or you cynically believe your constituents are not bright enough to understand the function of the judiciary, and you wish to exploit our perceived ignorance to stake out a political position in contravention of the long-held, pragmatic tradition of political neutrality toward the judicial branch.
I can't be certain if your claimed rationale for voting against Roberts is born of legal ignorance or of political calculation, though given your academic credentials I tend to suspect the latter. In either case it seems irresponsible to vote against a candidate whom you admit is at least 95% suited for the task, and my confidence in your ability to rationally represent the interests of the citizens of Illinois has declined substantially. Illinois voters deserve better from someone who is reputed to be both one of the finest legal scholars and most even-handed intellectuals in the Senate. Our state's Senate delegation already has one hopelessly partisan demagogue who ignores the values of half his constituency as a matter of course. It is my sincere hope that we don't now have two.
Best Regards,
-The Curmudgeon
UPDATE 9-28-05:
Senator Obama responds:
Thank you, Senator, for the canned response that is basically a restatement of your press release. That clarifies your stance on the issue masterfully. I guess.
|
Dear Senator Obama:
I read today that you intend to vote "no" on the confirmation of John Roberts to the position of Chief Justice of the United States. The reason you supplied was that your study of Roberts' legal career reveals that "he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak."
Far apart from being an unfair and inaccurate assessment of Judge Roberts' career, I find it stunning that a Harvard Law graduate and former University of Chicago law professor believes the function of the legal system is to stand up for the weak against the strong -- as though the courts are little more than a great weapon with which David can slay Goliath without regard for the merits of David's grievances -- rather than weigh the constitutionality and applicability of the law from one case to the next. By your reasoning no government lawyer -- government being the strongest institution in the nation, generally pursuing its interests against weaker targets -- is fit to serve in a judicial capacity. Either that or you cynically believe your constituents are not bright enough to understand the function of the judiciary, and you wish to exploit our perceived ignorance to stake out a political position in contravention of the long-held, pragmatic tradition of political neutrality toward the judicial branch.
I can't be certain if your claimed rationale for voting against Roberts is born of legal ignorance or of political calculation, though given your academic credentials I tend to suspect the latter. In either case it seems irresponsible to vote against a candidate whom you admit is at least 95% suited for the task, and my confidence in your ability to rationally represent the interests of the citizens of Illinois has declined substantially. Illinois voters deserve better from someone who is reputed to be both one of the finest legal scholars and most even-handed intellectuals in the Senate. Our state's Senate delegation already has one hopelessly partisan demagogue who ignores the values of half his constituency as a matter of course. It is my sincere hope that we don't now have two.
Best Regards,
-The Curmudgeon
UPDATE 9-28-05:
Senator Obama responds:
Dear Curmudgeon:
Thank you for advising me of your views on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I appreciate hearing from you.
Last week the Senate Committee on the Judiciary recommended Judge Roberts' nomination by a vote of 13 to 5. The full Senate will vote on Judge Roberts' nomination this week. After careful review of Judge Roberts' record and testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and after a personal meeting with Judge Roberts in my office, I will vote against his confirmation. Enclosed is a copy of my September 22, 2005 floor statement announcing my position on Judge Roberts.
The Constitution gives the U.S. Senate the special responsibility of "advice and consent" on appointments to the federal bench. Judge Roberts' advocates point to his sterling academic and professional credentials as justification for his confirmation.
I agree that Judge Roberts is an accomplished jurist with a very impressive resume and personal story. But my bottom line is the confidence that any Supreme Court nominee -- especially for Chief Justice -- will respect the constitutionally protected rights of individuals and resist the temptation to substitute personal ideology for legal reasoning. Despite Judge Roberts’ impressive credentials, I do not have that confidence in this case. While I hope that he will prove me wrong during his tenure on the court, I cannot support his nomination. A copy of my floor remarks on this nomination is enclosed for your consideration.
Again, thank you for contacting me on this very significant matter. Please continue to stay in touch in the future.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
Thank you, Senator, for the canned response that is basically a restatement of your press release. That clarifies your stance on the issue masterfully. I guess.
|
