By Anthony Cash
On July 19, 2005, President George W. Bush nominated Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to replace Sandra Day O’Connor as the ninth member of the U. S. Supreme Court. Already, Roberts’ appointment has received vehement opposition from many left-wing groups and several Senate Democrats, but we can expect increased liberal hostility as his confirmation nears.
Why such an outcry against Judge Roberts? He seems eminently qualified: he is a graduate of Harvard Law School, has served as Associate Counsel to the White House and argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court on a variety of issues. But his qualifications are not what causes his opponents consternation.
What the left fears is the appointment of an individual who will adhere to a more literal interpretation of the Constitution. Appointing Roberts would, by all accounts, bring the Court to a five-four split with a conservative and judicially restrained majority. Despite the left’s claims, such a court would not strip citizens of our basic civil rights. The Democrats’ real fear is that they will once again be forced to take their agenda to the American people for consent. No longer will they be able to rely as heavily on the judiciary to hand down decisions that further their vision and fly in the face of the legislatures, both state and federal.
Ironically, it is the group that claims to be the friend of the commoner who lately seeks to strip the citizenry of any recourse or review. The left’s use of the court system as a method to change policy is patently undemocratic.
The Court members, appointed for life, are not accountable to any voting constituency, and have effectively no check on their power except a dubious self-restraint. To say the least, so much concentrated power is susceptible to abuse, and disenfranchises voters by not allowing them to act through their representatives.
As the 2004 elections illustrated, mainstream American thought is not in line with left-wing political philosophy. The passage of marriage amendments in several states is also indicative of this. Without the support of the courts, the American liberal movement will lose much of its political potency. This is the real reason that we will see an increased opposition to Roberts as his approval nears, even perhaps some attempts to filibuster his confirmation hearing by Senate Democrats.
As someone who supports continued public discourse, and above all, the empowerment of individuals, I would call on those in opposition to Roberts to reconsider. A less activist Supreme Court is not to be feared. True, Democrats might lose ground on some issues for the moment, but there are broader concerns than partisanship.
A court exercising restraint will still protect you from arbitrary decisions. Moreover, the court’s place is not to legislate or amend the constitution as they see fit. Those powers are reserved for the people, manifested through their representatives, over whom they retain the right of review by re-election. To support Judge John Roberts is to support public discourse, judicial restraint and democracy. Whether a Republican or Democrat, a swift, fair confirmation process for Judge Roberts is in the best interest of all Americans.
Anthony Cash is a sophomore majoring in Political Science , and a member of the McConnell Scholars program. E-mail him at:opinion@louisvillecardinal.com
