Thursday, July 21, 2005
Who Is John Roberts? (Take N)
Randy Barnett of The Volokh Conspiracy presents a fascinating take on the "real" John Roberts. The bottom line: nobody knows what "real" is, when it comes to juding Roberts's likely performance as a Supreme.
I've read elsewhere about Roberts's near-invisibility (though I especially liked Barnett's analysis of it). The whole thing does give one pause, though; it's almost as if he was intended -- by himself or by others -- to be A Man Without A Past.
Whether intended or not, it's certainly an effective smokescreen, hmm? To every question, just fill in the blank with "N/A."
(Link via Ed, at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)
...Writing an article, giving a speech, or even writing a column or blog about how the Constitution should be interpreted--taking a position, and defending it against all comers--is hard. Not the same kind of hard as standing up to judicial questioning in oral argument, to be sure. Almost completely different, actually. It requires a knowledge of one's own principles and an ability to articulate them and defend them publicly against contrary views.Great. Just what we need -- a Supreme Court nominee with all the history of an undercover intelligence operative.
This is a type of trial by ordeal that hones one's beliefs and commitments. Consider it the academic equivalent of briefing and oral argument about one's judicial philosophy. Even engaging in private debate is no substitute for public disclosure and scrutiny by other scholars. John Roberts has been able somehow to avoid this ordeal throughout a long and distinguished career. This degree of avoidance would seem to have taken effort and discipline.
In contrast, Judge Michael McConnell, to name another conservative, has been through this ordeal. As a law professor, he has had to make such a commitment about judicial philosophy and defend it. When it comes to originalism, he has practiced it himself, and the fruits of his analysis have been subjected to severe academic scrutiny. In doing so, he has earned the respect of his academic adversaries. But because he has a paper trail, McConnell would have had a much tougher confirmation fight, which I imagine entered into the decision to pick Judge Roberts instead.
I've read elsewhere about Roberts's near-invisibility (though I especially liked Barnett's analysis of it). The whole thing does give one pause, though; it's almost as if he was intended -- by himself or by others -- to be A Man Without A Past.
Whether intended or not, it's certainly an effective smokescreen, hmm? To every question, just fill in the blank with "N/A."
(Link via Ed, at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)
