is a review of elements of law. i've discovered the purpose of that eight week introductory course at cardozo. it's for cocktail party conversations and understanding crushingly boring senate hearings.
great. what a fabulous start to the day. the first sounds to emit from the television set were: "strict constructionalist" and "originalist."
and then a strange thing happened. i couldn't take my eyes off the telly. all of the jargon appeared to be in plain english. i was following the parrying of questioning and answering without any trouble. this roberts guy is really good at handling the socratic method. and he has been talking about standing for the last twenty minutes, and i can't believe i haven't changed the channel.
all right. from what i gather, he's a conservative (big surprise here). he is more minimalist than not in his philosophy of interpreting the constitution. he probably would have scoffed at the "penumbras and emanations" argument of the privacy line of cases had he been on the court in the 60's, although he did say that he would follow precedent. (i'm skeptical of the "following precedent" line, because cases that reach the supreme court have unsettled questions of law, and "following precedent" could mean going either way. a case reaches the supreme court when it has been distinguished from precedent, and therefore, the question is up in the air. "following precedent" might make more sense for an appointee of lower courts, but it is the job of the supreme court to draw boundaries. the phrase "following precedent" is hollow when it comes to supreme court nominees.)
2 comments:
he wasn't talking about following the precedent of previous USSC cases?
he did say that he would respect predecent (but like i said, that's a hollow phrase when it comes to the supreme court, because cases that reach the supreme court don't fall neatly into "precedent"). i got the impression that he was giving "lawyerly" answers. instead of expounding on his personal philosophies, he cites cases. he acknowledges that there is a right to privacy but he doesn't say whether it extends to a woman's right to choose. he dodged kennedy's question about his memos about the voting rights act when he was representing the reagan administration, saying that "it was the administration's stance. i was representing the administration." all i can say is that he is a shrewd man. i still don't know what he's all about, but if i needed representation, i wouldn't hesitate to hire him.
Post a Comment