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 08:40 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack | law general