Roberts hearings, Day 2 - Hatch and Kennedy
Speaking with Senator Orrin Hatch (R, Utah):
Roberts stated he's "acutely aware that millions and millions of people have voted for you [Congress], and not one has voted for us." (A confirmation vote from Congress being separate from a standard democratic election.
Glad to hear Roberts shoot down this idea of "judicial activism" which has become right-wing slang:
Roberts: It's not judicial activism when the courts rule against a law.
Hatch gave him a chance to talk about his pro-bono work (working for free). He would as a justice fight to encourage more lawyers to do pro-bono work. One program he strongly advocates is the Street Law program, which brings public school teachers to the Supreme Court to learn more about it, to better enable them to go back to their schools and teach their students about the judicial branch.
Hatch surprised me with some hard-hitting questions, and I think his portion of the hearings was really interesting.
Speaking with Senator Kennedy, who PINNED ROBERTS TO THE WALL:
Kennedy spoke fiercely again about civil rights and about the duty of all three "co-equal" branches of government to work together to fight poverty and access to equal opportunity. "I'm not talking about a handout, but a hand up," he said.
He asked Roberts if he believes that Congress has the right to pass laws against discrimination. Roberts does. It's hard to summarize all they talked about because Kennedy went into a lot of details in his questions and Roberts likewise in his answers. Kennedy was in Congress voting on some of the laws that Roberts then attacked on behalf of the Reagan administration as their lawyer.
He went into Brown vs. Board, and talked about how that case examined the role of public school education in society on the basis of a "real world consideration," as its role had evolved greatly over the past century or so of American history. In asking Roberts whether or not he agreed with the "real world" basis, he was trying to get Roberts to make a stance fundmentally on the "living document" versus "fixed rules" views of constitutional law. As in, are you going to try to uphold a document that was written ages ago without the consideration of what's currently going on in society?
Roberts did support the real world consideration and also spoke beautifully on behalf of that crucial Supreme Court decision---emphasizing that the decision was based on the unconstitutionality of separation itself and would have been the same whether or not the education children were receiving was of equal value.
Kennedy asked Roberts if he felt that the progress we made over the past fifty years in civil rights is irreversible... or if he has any concerns or reservations about the constitutionality of civil rights laws. Roberts pretty much said he was not aware of any issues about their constitutionality. Kennedy totally grilled him on previous arguments he'd made in support of keeping civil rights laws to their narrowest scopes---for example, his vehement arguing against the Civil Rights Restoration Act, having to do with whether universities whose students were receiving federal aid were bound under civil rights laws in all areas (housing, athletics, hiring, etc) or just for their admissions departments. Roberts had argued the Reagan position that it only applied to admissions. This position lost to Congress and Kennedy's position that civil rights laws applied generally to the entire institution.
Roberts is bound in a difficult fashion here---he can't express opinions on cases that might come before the court in the future, but some of the members of the committee asking him questions present ones that border on asking for or directly ask for his opinion.
I really recommend reading transcripts or watching recaps of Kennedy's portion of the hearing, because it was very compelling and I can't represent it well here, especially while also trying to listen to the President of Iraq speaking at the White House.
[edit]
Afterwards, clipping a lot:
CNN: Were you reassured or disappointed by Roberts' answers?
Kennedy: Well, I was troubled and disappointed. ... I'm concerned that the judge's views on civil rights appear very much to be his views today.
CNN: What do you think of his response to Specter's questions on abortion?
Kennedy: I think we're going to hear more about this ... We ought to wait and hear the responses [to Senator Feinstein's questions about this topic later].
Roberts stated he's "acutely aware that millions and millions of people have voted for you [Congress], and not one has voted for us." (A confirmation vote from Congress being separate from a standard democratic election.
Glad to hear Roberts shoot down this idea of "judicial activism" which has become right-wing slang:
Roberts: It's not judicial activism when the courts rule against a law.
Hatch gave him a chance to talk about his pro-bono work (working for free). He would as a justice fight to encourage more lawyers to do pro-bono work. One program he strongly advocates is the Street Law program, which brings public school teachers to the Supreme Court to learn more about it, to better enable them to go back to their schools and teach their students about the judicial branch.
Hatch surprised me with some hard-hitting questions, and I think his portion of the hearings was really interesting.
Speaking with Senator Kennedy, who PINNED ROBERTS TO THE WALL:
Kennedy spoke fiercely again about civil rights and about the duty of all three "co-equal" branches of government to work together to fight poverty and access to equal opportunity. "I'm not talking about a handout, but a hand up," he said.
He asked Roberts if he believes that Congress has the right to pass laws against discrimination. Roberts does. It's hard to summarize all they talked about because Kennedy went into a lot of details in his questions and Roberts likewise in his answers. Kennedy was in Congress voting on some of the laws that Roberts then attacked on behalf of the Reagan administration as their lawyer.
He went into Brown vs. Board, and talked about how that case examined the role of public school education in society on the basis of a "real world consideration," as its role had evolved greatly over the past century or so of American history. In asking Roberts whether or not he agreed with the "real world" basis, he was trying to get Roberts to make a stance fundmentally on the "living document" versus "fixed rules" views of constitutional law. As in, are you going to try to uphold a document that was written ages ago without the consideration of what's currently going on in society?
Roberts did support the real world consideration and also spoke beautifully on behalf of that crucial Supreme Court decision---emphasizing that the decision was based on the unconstitutionality of separation itself and would have been the same whether or not the education children were receiving was of equal value.
Kennedy asked Roberts if he felt that the progress we made over the past fifty years in civil rights is irreversible... or if he has any concerns or reservations about the constitutionality of civil rights laws. Roberts pretty much said he was not aware of any issues about their constitutionality. Kennedy totally grilled him on previous arguments he'd made in support of keeping civil rights laws to their narrowest scopes---for example, his vehement arguing against the Civil Rights Restoration Act, having to do with whether universities whose students were receiving federal aid were bound under civil rights laws in all areas (housing, athletics, hiring, etc) or just for their admissions departments. Roberts had argued the Reagan position that it only applied to admissions. This position lost to Congress and Kennedy's position that civil rights laws applied generally to the entire institution.
Roberts is bound in a difficult fashion here---he can't express opinions on cases that might come before the court in the future, but some of the members of the committee asking him questions present ones that border on asking for or directly ask for his opinion.
I really recommend reading transcripts or watching recaps of Kennedy's portion of the hearing, because it was very compelling and I can't represent it well here, especially while also trying to listen to the President of Iraq speaking at the White House.
[edit]
Afterwards, clipping a lot:
CNN: Were you reassured or disappointed by Roberts' answers?
Kennedy: Well, I was troubled and disappointed. ... I'm concerned that the judge's views on civil rights appear very much to be his views today.
CNN: What do you think of his response to Specter's questions on abortion?
Kennedy: I think we're going to hear more about this ... We ought to wait and hear the responses [to Senator Feinstein's questions about this topic later].