Over the last two days I was able to listen to enough of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Judge Roberts to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to recognize what a brilliant choice the President made. The brilliance shines through especially in the contrast with the Senators.
No one should be surprised at Senatorial bloviating; it goes with the territory. Yet, it was also highly instructive. While Senator Biden was trying to trap Judge Roberts, and becoming increasingly frustrated by his inability to do so, I was struck by the contrast between a brilliant but humble man (using humble in the very best sense) and a dimmer man who in his hubris takes himself to be brilliant.
Captain Ed covered Biden nicely:
Biden then asked a series of questions based on old staff memos, each time getting more and more animated and each time cutting off the answers. Specter not only repeatedly reminded Biden to allow Roberts to answer, but finally had to remind Biden that the entire purpose of the committee hearing was to get Roberts' answers, not Joe Biden's filibustering. Biden, unbelievably, then complained not once but several times that Roberts' answers ate up too much of Biden's time. When rebuked, Biden made childish asides that he confused with wit, such as "But his answers are misleading," when Biden could hardly have heard anything Roberts had tried to say.
Roberts, on the other hand, impressed with his knowledge of his specialty, Constitutional Law, and as with so many truly brilliant people, recognized how important humility is for the proper exercise of great power. Brian McGuire is a Staff Reporter of the New York Sun, a newspaper which is a bargain if you subscribe on line (or buy it in hard copy for that matter) and features the best news reporting in New York. He summarizes the events of yesterday in Schumer 'Surprised' by Judge Roberts (I do not know if this requires a subscription, but if it does, see my previous subordinate clause):
The role of the Supreme Court and its justices was a central theme of the day, with Judge Roberts answering about 40 questions on the topic. And it was a topic at which the nominee was perhaps at his best. He used questions about the court to promote the view that judges should be humble and that the role of the courts is a limited one. Judge Roberts even distinguished himself from a justice that Mr. Bush has cited as one of his favorites, Justice Scalia, by noting his own willingness to discuss cases he does not expect to come before the court again. Justice Scalia famously refused to discuss the case Marbury v. Madison, which established the powers of the court, during his own hearing in 1986.
In the third in a series on Intellectualization, Free Speech, & Unintended Consequences, I wrote about the danger of Judges departing from the text of the Constitution when deciding cases. It requires a great deal of hubris for a man to believe he is not only smarter than everyone else, but that his intellectual gifts give him the wisdom and judgment to tell others how to live. I have no doubts that Senator Biden believes he knows exactly how we should all live our lives and that Judge Roberts would suggest that is never the role of the courts.
We also need something greater than ourselves to anchor our morality; otherwise morality is just opinion. In our secular world, we have had the tremendous advantage of some rather brilliant men who put to paper, over 200 years ago, a set of principles which have served to protect the kinds of personal freedoms that have never been seen before for so many for so long. If we replace our reliance on the words they left us and instead rely on what we want the words to mean, we are endangering our freedoms, almost always with the best of intentions. When Justice Kennedy writes that his recent decision on executing minors (a decision I agree with, by the way) is in part based on the opinions of the international (ie EU) elite, I see us moving into dangerous territory. We need Supreme Court Justices who are humble men, who do not see things in the words that are not there. If our freedoms depend on the opinions of nine fallible individuals, I would prefer to rely on individuals who recognize how little we really know, even about ourselves, and how little we really can know. We should be extraordinarily careful of altering something which has worked well, if not perfectly, for over 200 years. The Constitution is difficult to amend for a reason and the unintended consequences of creative interpretation of the Constitution are quite frightening.
I find that the more I know in my chosen field, the less certain I am about the so-called verities and the more aware I am of how much I don't know; I suspect many people feel the same way in their chosen fields of expertise. I am reassured that Judge Roberts has not only a great intellect but the judgment and wisdom that is rare to find these days in public officials.
Recent Comments