Nicole RobinsonWhen the founding fathers of the United States created three branches of government, they intended for each to have its own unique role in upholding the newly formed system.
Presidents were meant to be part of the executive branch, helping to enforce the rules of the land. Congress was meant to be part of the legislative branch, which was established to help create laws. And the judicial system was meant to help decide arguments about laws – how they are applied and whether or not they break the Constitution.
The way I was led to believe when being taught about our government in ninth grade civics class was that members of the judiciary were supposed to be objective. Political leanings are not something that judges, who are supposed to be fair and impartial, are supposed to take to the bench, right?
Why then has John Roberts’ Senate confirmation been dragged for weeks and weeks, held up by little more than petty infighting between Democrats and Republicans?
As the Rolling Stones once said, you can’t always get what you want, but you get what you need.
John Roberts’ record as a judge is solid, and his credentials prove he is capable of taking on the role of Supreme Court justice.
Judging nominees for the highest court in the land shouldn’t have anything to do with a candidate’s personal political leanings. In the past, this did not enter into the equation when presidents from both ends of the political spectrum nominated justices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed with a vote of 96-3 in 1993, and Stephen Breyer was confirmed with a vote of 87-9 in 1994. Both were nominees of President Clinton. On the other side, Antonin Scalia, a nominee of President Reagan was confirmed with a vote of 98-0 in 1987.
As we’ve seen since they were placed on the bench, these justices have at times leaned a bit to the left, or a bit to the right. However, when they were going through the confirmation process they were never put in the hot seat to determine how left or right of center they were. They were not expected to produce answers on how they would decide in certain cases. Roberts should be held to the same standards as past nominees.
It is entirely possible that Roberts’ rulings will have a conservative spin. But honestly, folks, he was nominated by a Republican president who said prior to being elected that if given the opportunity, he would nominate a judge who shared some of his beliefs. It’s ludicrous for liberals to think the next two Supreme Court Justices will come from Democrat-friendly background.
Let’s look at the flip side of things. If a Democratic president was nominating someone for the Supreme Court, would it be very likely that he would nominate someone who was a card-carrying Republican most of his or her life?
Frankly, John Roberts, who has said he respects Roe v. Wade as precedent and will uphold civil rights laws, should be a liberally minded citizen’s dream candidate, especially considering the myriad of judges the president could have chosen who may have fought some of the courts’ rulings on these matters.
With the hearings over, and a Republican majority in Congress who will support the president’s choice, Roberts is bound for the bench.
That said, these hearings shouldn’t have been wasted on nit-picking, or on fighting for access to documents that have little to do with Roberts’ abilities as a judge.
What our elected officials should be focusing on is finding a justice to take over for Sandra Day O’Conner, who announced earlier this year that she was leaving the bench. Part of what makes the Supreme Court work so well is the constant change, the influence of leaders from both the left and right side of the aisle and our usual acceptance that justices will be fair and impartial in their rulings.
We need to get on with it. We need two new justices. And the sooner we do that, the better.
MacLaughlin is a senior print journalism major and editorial editor of The Spectator. Mac Mouths Off is a weekly column that appears every Thursday.
