WHAT’S THE POINT?
The political ideologues on the far left, and the far right, and a few in the middle, have made much hay lately over the appointment of the now certainly to be confirmed Judge John Roberts. From the far left, we hear that he is the embodiment of all that is evil on the right. He has credentials that scream his Republican pedigree. He has worked in the Reagan, and Bush Sr. presidencies. He has worked in the private sector for business, and he has appeared in front of the U.S. Supreme Court more than 38 times.
The far right is screaming that this man is an unknown quantity because he has made no specific, identifiable statements about his conservative credentials on abortion, gay rights, civil rights, affirmative action and taxation.
Both sides want more information, and neither is happy with his closed-mouthed answers during the confirmation hearings.
This is precisely why the presidential election holds such immense power. The presidency is considered the most powerful job on the planet. Most people immediately go to the nuclear arms, the aircraft carriers, our mostly amazing Army, and the infrastructure that can dominate other countries, along with the economic power we hold.
All of that is true. The president could order the bombing of Russia, or the invasion of a small Caribbean island, and has the resources to make it so. Thankfully though, he has a few buffers around him to forestall such flights of fancy, at least I think he might.
However, that is merely the obvious power that the position holds. The less obvious powers, and the ones which effect our daily lives far more, are found in his ability to put people in charge.
Presidential appointments are coveted and highly fought for, precisely because they carry with them so much power. This is why presidential politics matters.
I’ve said before that the residents of Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, got the president they voted for, and they have no right to complain about his actions, or inactions.
Judge John Roberts was nominated by this president because he feels that Roberts is the right man to lead the court.
At this point, it now becomes the job of the Senate to interview Mr. Roberts and give their advice and their consent, or not, to his becoming the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
The political groups on both sides of the aisle have issued press releases, held press conferences, run TV commercials, and advertised their disapproval of his nomination.
Frankly, they have the right to waste all their money on such pointless activities, which really are just about fundraising for the next year. The reality is that the Senate will take its cue from the Judiciary Committee, which is Republican controlled, and therefore, this man shall become the next Chief Justice, and all the posturing and advertising will do nothing to change that.
The committee on the other hand, will engage in its own vain and useless attempts to grill the judge, on his views and opinions about what he thinks he might do in the future.
Again, this is merely set dressing for the future fundraising of these politicians since there is not a chance in hell of this incredibly eloquent, and intelligent man giving them what they want. He did not give them the soundbite they all were fishing for, “I believe that Roe vs. Wade should be...”
Judge Roberts refused to answer many questions. And that is how it should be.
The Senate’s job is to determine if this candidate, like all candidates, is qualified. That means they should be seeing if he is academically suitable, experienced, and possesses the character necessary for the job. Consequently, the Senate Committee should be asking questions about his schooling, his experience working in law, and any questionable business or personal activities that would indicate he is a liar, a cheat or a thief. (I realize that last one is cutting a little close to the bone for most politicians. Which is probably why they avoid it the most.) Instead of doing their job, which would take about a day, with a person who possesses the qualifications of this man, they posture, and pander, and prevaricate, and drag out the process, so that they can have the necessary video clips for their next campaign.
The questions should have been, 1) Does he have a license to be a lawyer? 2) Does he have experience suitable for the Supreme Court? 3) Has he been convicted of any felonies that would preclude his performing his duties?
But, as we learned with the Katrina debacle, we have a Senate that rarely does their job as they should.
The president nominated Michael Brown, a man with no serious qualifications to an agency the president felt was pretty much useless. I say that, because he fairly well gutted the budget, and the mandate for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Had the Katrina media blitz not come along, we likely would never have noticed how completely inept and inappropriate Mr. Brown was. Additionally, we would not have realized that the Senate spent barely an hour on this man and his lack of qualifications.
The Senate is supposed to judge candidates as qualified or not. The judging of the judges should happen by the electorate. But as I have frequently pointed out, we have an electorate that is at best apathetic, and at worst, numb and ignorant.
For those people who are now bemoaning the bungling of the hurricane relief, or panicking at the thought of this president nominating two Supreme Court Justices, I just want to know, where were you in October of 2004?
You were warned about this man. You were told about the importance of this past election.
You have no right to complain about a result, of an election in which you did not participate. (David Pisarra is a business development lawyer in the Santa Monica law firm of Pisarra & Grist. He for comments at (310) 664-9969 or
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on September 20, 2005. Read the original PDF.