(no subject)

[herveus]

In today's Washington Post, Jeff Sessions (Sen, R-AL) expounds on characteristics of "The Right Person for the High Court". (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/12/AR2009051202877.html)

Among his statements:

Consistent adherence to the written law, regardless of a justice's feelings toward a particular person or political group in a case, is an essential element to an orderly society. It helps establish the moral authority for law and is the basis for the public's acceptance of judicial decisions.

My conclusion:

He holds appellate bench candidates to different standards. Clearly. He has supported Bush nominees to appellate courts who clearly and openly felt that the written law was not necessarily binding on the opinions to be rendered -- "activist judges" by any reasonable standard. Perhaps the truth is that this is simply code for "hews to the conservative line" whether or not it is supported in law. Names that come to mind are Priscilla Owen (from Texas to the Fifth Circuit) and Janice Rogers Brown (from California to the D.C. Circuit). He voted Yea on each.

I'm not remotely surprised here.

Comments

[hazebrouck.livejournal.com]

Doesn't this really translate to "someone who will reverse roe v wade'?

[herveus.livejournal.com]

I'm sure that's one of the subtexts, but I don't expect him to be that narrow. Surely there are other contentious matters that need "correcting". Of course, the "written law" he refers to is more than just the statutes enacted by Congress. It includes the constitution as well, and the judge must examine the former in light of the latter. When the judge arrives at a sound and reasoned decision that you don't like, the judge is, perforce, "activist", regardless of adherence to the principles.