Back in August, my uncle asked me what I thought about the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. I told him I was cautious but ultimately undecided, and I still am now. My uncle said he was reassured by the fact that the one thing people can agree upon in regards to this enigmatic man is that he has a good sense of humor. This cheers my uncle, and it does for me as well. Better than some of the sourpusses already on the bench. I told him that it bothered me that he was a white, upperclass male. I didn't have a lot of faith that he would have much empathy for the little guy or the other, whether it be minorities or women.
I sent my uncle the Richard Cohen column from today's Washington Post, highlighting the last paragraph. In the article Cohen is talking about reading a new textbook for high school students in Philadelphia, entitled, The African-American Oddessy. Here's Cohen's last paragraph:
If I were in the Senate, I'd vote no on Roberts -- not because I think he's unqualified intellectually to be the next chief justice but because I fear an easy life has led him to easy answers. Judge Roberts will surely get his seat on the high court. He was virtually born to it. I wish, though, that I thought it remotely possible he'd read "The African-American Odyssey." It's about people who for too long a time were born to something else.
This is my uncle's response to my email:
I had read that article and found some resonance with it. If it were my choice in these circumstances, I would vote for him and hope for the best. Though I am not as good-two shoes as John Roberts may be, we have shared lives without much trauma or want. My life has been pretty easy to live and I'm thankful and expressive of that fact most every week. I'm half as smart as this guy and I hope he has at least half the humor and respect that I have -- his old roommates say he has even when they've disagreed. I'd like to think that I could evaluate law and society in a manner sympathetic to all its citizens and I am hopeful that he can as well. I don't know the books he has read, but I hope they are of a wide and varied nature.
Now, I happen to know that my uncle is an excellent man, and one of the most fair and highly moral people I can hope to know. He is also smart and extremely empathetic. He didn't go to Harvard Law or a prep school, and I don't know how many of the same books he and Judge Roberts have read in common. I hope that Roberts is sympathetic and close to as high-minded as my uncle is.
I listened to some of the Roberts hearings the week they were going, but I could only listen in the mornings as I got ready for work. One thing that struck me from the last day of the hearings was this (and I'm going to be vague because I can't remember the specifics, I wish that I had written down some names). I just remember that some of the people who came to give testimony or to speak on behalf of an organization were being criticized for being too extreme in their denunciations of Judge Roberts. Too quick to judge him. (I think one of the women was from Planned Parenthood and one had some sort of religious affilliation-- she was *very* interesting.) The point was made that PP had criticized all of the justices put on the bench since Roe, saying that s/he would overturn Roe. (They weren't taking Scalia or Thomas into account, by the way.) The point was that these justices have been more liberal in regards to abortion rights and Roe than PP and NARAL, etc. had originally thought, so these groups didn't have much ground to stand on here, since we don't know what Roberts thinks about any of this.
My uncle also made the point to me, back in August, that the Constitution is a liberal document. He had read an article recently discussing just this point. Why do conservative judges act more liberal than expected once on the Supreme Court? Because the document is open and not closed. I believe strongly in this principle and idea of openess, and I believe strongly in the Constitution. I feel like I am taking a bit of a leap of faith, though, when I say go forth and judge on the Supreme Court. I guess it is a leap of faith. I guess that's part of the marketplace of ideas, right? You have to believe that what you are saying is the truth and have faith that others will see it as that as well. Nominating someone to the Supreme Court is a leap of faith for everyone involved, even the nominee. The nominee doesn't even know how he or she will act in the unknown future.
I guess this was a very long-winded way of saying that I am resigned and still hopeful about our future Chief Justice. I am concerned for who may be the next nominee. I just hope it's not going to be a female-hating woman. I'm afraid it might.
Recent Comments