So what are judges for?

"She has criticised the New Deal, which gave us Social Security, the minimum wage, and fair labour laws. She's questioned whether age discrimination laws benefit the public interest," said Ted Kennedy of Janice Rogers Brown, "No one with these views should be confirmed to a federal court and certainly not to the federal court most responsible for cases affecting government action."

It seems that Senator Kennedy, despite his training as a lawyer and four decades in the Senate does not fully understand the separation of powers. Given his own views, it is hardly surprising that Senator Kennedy would not vote for Justice Brown if she were a candidate for legislative office. But she is not. And Senator Kennedy has not criticised anything in Justice Brown's long record as a judge. She has not, as far as I know or as far as Kennedy has alleged, said that the New Deal is unconstitutional, just that she finds elements in it with which she disagrees.

Apologists for the judicial filibusters claim there is nothing new in attempts to block the President's nominees. But there plainly is something radically new. Opponents of Robert Bork criticised his judicial philosophy, not his political views. It was his view that Roe v Wade was not settled law that was the key issue. Today the key issue is that Justice Brown is not a Democrat.

View print friendly version

All information © copyright Quentin Langley 2019
RSS 1.0 Feed