Home > Perspective

On Whose SIDE will Judge Roberts Be?

by John F. Tamburo, Editor in Chief, Publisher
Originally Posted: 7/20/2005 12:35:55 PM
Last Updated: 7/20/2005 1:14:27 PM

Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy of Massachusetts, extreme left-wing socialist, is on the warpath against our beloved President’s nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr. His main talking point: "whose side will [Judge Roberts] be on?"  Rush Limbaugh is presently picking apart the Senator; I will not presume to outdo the great Maha Rushie.  However, I am making a small observation.

"The idea that a Supreme Court justice is supposed to defend liberal interest group X against putatively evil conservative faction Y, aside from being facially ludicrous, flouts the principle of judicial neutrality."

A Supreme Court Justice is not supposed to be on any person’s "side!"  The building in which the Court convenes is engraved with the words "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW."  The idea that a Supreme Court justice is supposed to defend liberal interest group X against putatively evil conservative faction Y, aside from being facially ludicrous, flouts the principle of judicial neutrality.  That is the liberal fallacy in a nutshell.  To the left, the court is not a place that applies the law fairly and without prejudice or passion.  It’s a place where the judge usurps the role of advocate from the attorney, and also usurps the role of lawmaker from the elected lawmakers, and then legislates the judge’s personal views upon the rest.  It’s the dictatorship of Sulla implemented from the bench.

This is why I am so pleased with our President’s every choice to the federal courts to date.  His nominees to date are deferential to the law, unless the law flouts the plain and actual language of our Constitution.  Judge Roberts appears to be no different.  His appellate opinions reflect a deference to the law.  Will Judge Roberts get on the Supreme Court, get drunk with the power that comes with being one of nine final arbiters of our body of law, and then legislate his views from the bench, àla Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer and Souter (and often O’Connor and Kennedy)?  I think not.

"The liberals’ nightmare is Antonin Scalia II."

The liberals’ nightmare is Antonin Scalia II.  Judge Roberts’ disposition is his own -- he is his own man.  However, I think that he is an intellectual fellow of Justices Scalia and Thomas.  That is why the left is gearing up higher and higher against Judge Roberts.  The left needs advocates for its popularly-rejected philosophies.  Their last bastion of advocates are the sitting-for-life judiciary.  Our President’s response has been to nominate young, solidly strict-constructionist, judges to the bench at all levels.  In my home district, look at the excellence of Judges Amy St. Eve, Samuel Der-Yeghiayan and Mark Filip (who once clerked for Justice Scalia and who was sworn in by Justice Scalia).

To the left, the phrase EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW means that the court has to advocate liberal philosophy and implement it, notwithstanding the peoples’ rejection of that philosophy.  To the right, especially to our beloved President Bush, that phrase means exactly what it says.  Everyone is equal because of the law, and only by enforcing our laws can everyone be equal.  The people know the stakes, and have wisely elected the GOP into more and more power.

On whose side will Justice Roberts be?  Everybody’s, and nobody’s.  He will uphold the law equally.