September 30, 2005
Ronald Dworkin on Judge Roberts
As this is written, there seems no doubt that the committee and then the Senate will confirm Judge Roberts's nomination, probably, in the latter case, by a large margin. He is a stunningly intelligent lawyer who may well prove to be an excellent chief justice. The country will have to wait and see. But Senator Biden was right when he said that in approving his nomination the Senate is "rolling dice." The Judiciary Committee allowed him to keep his jurisprudential convictions, if he has any, almost entirely hidden. The senators asked him to comment on very specific cases and issues, an invitation he steadily—though with at least one notable exception—refused.[11] I believe he was wrong to refuse to answer these specific questions. His argument that it is unfair to litigants to reveal his present opinion of issues he might later confront is very weak. His honest statement of his present views would in no sense be a promise or commitment. He will have to consider arguments in specific cases before making a decision, and he will join a Court most of whose other members have publicly stated their opinions on many of the issues that will come before them without raising any question of fairness to future litigants, who must often argue knowing that certain justices are disposed to vote against them. His argument, moreover, wholly neglects a very powerful contrary consideration: that according to any plausible view of democracy the public has a right to know his views on matters affecting their fundamental rights in some detail before their representatives award him lifetime power over those rights.
more from The New York Review of Books here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 10:18 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c562c53ef00d834922c2769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ronald Dworkin on Judge Roberts:






















Comments
If one take the position that Judge Robert's personal views are a matter of public knowledge and policy, it certainly goes against the thought that Judge Robert's is also a person entitled to privacy and not to be judged in relationship or even damaged in having a point of view on a issue.
Democracy does not hold that my views have to be made public, in order to serve in a public official capacity. Democracy protects me in particular for having a point of view and choosing to express that point of view, it does not state anywhere that my point of view or opinion on any subject becomes the "right" of the people to know.
Just a different point of view!
Posted by: Paula | Oct 21, 2005 8:37:01 AM
Post a comment