« School? Work? What? | Main | A Plainspoken Public Defender »
The Rule Of Law?
In his first day of confirmation hearings for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Samuel Alito said :
“The role of a practicing attorney is to achieve a desirable result for the client in the particular case at hand. But a judge can't think that way. A judge can't have any agenda,” he said. “The judge's only obligation, and it's a solemn obligation, is to the rule of law.”
Hm. No agenda, huh? The rule of law? What the heck does that mean? Take President's domestic spying, for example; is it legal? To answer the question, we have to figure out what law applies and what that law means. So is this the law that applies to Bush's domestic spying? If so, it's illegal. Or is this the law that applies? If so, it might be legal. In other words, with this and many many other issues, saying that a judge's only obligation is to the rule of law is the same as saying that a judge's only obligation is to his own values, experience, and preferences of interpretation.
A judge can't have any agenda? Poppycock. Judges are human, humans have agendas, and Alito—like Roberts before him—is more dangerous for the fact that he either doesn't recognize this or has chosen to lie about it.
Posted January 11, 2006 08:40 AM | law general
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mowabb.com/mt32/mt-tb.cgi/5061
I vote for lying, at least for Alito. I've been watching streaming video of the hearings, and a number of his answers do not match his decisions from the 3rd Circuit - specifically, his view of congressional power. He was kissing senatorial ass yesterday and today, but he clearly has a restrictive view of congressional power (see Rybar dissent). So, I vote for lying.
Posted by: Jennifer at January 11, 2006 08:39 PM
Does anyone see the problem with Alito not remembering his involvement with Concerned Alumni of Princeton organization? If he doesn't even remember his involvement and has repeatedly denied being an active member, why was it on his resume? Was he lying on the resume in order to boost his chances of being hired by a Republican Administration? If so, isn't lying on a resume for a federal position some type of crime? If he was an active member of the organization, there may exist cause for him not to be elevated to the USSC. If he wasn't an active member but lied about it on his resume, the same consequence may result. After all, on your resume, don't you usually post a little something you did for the group using action verbs?
Posted by: Keepali at January 12, 2006 05:16 PM
I don't think legal realism plays well on CSPAN.
Posted by: PG at January 19, 2006 03:38 AM
