Senate should reject Roberts’
confirmation
I am amazed that John Roberts, such a reputedly intelligent man,
ridicules the intelligence of the American people by acting as
though the Constitution were not subject to the highly subjective
interpretation that all texts invariably are. It disturbs me that I
spent several hours watching the confirmation hearings to learn
virtually nothing about the nominee that could shape the future of
the court for over the next two decades ““ if not longer. It
leaves me to ask the question: What’s the point of a
confirmation hearing in the first place, if the nominee refuses to
answer any question that would exhibit his approach to judicial
reasoning? His refusal to address the specifics of any case meant
that we were left with nothing but a plethora of labels, part this
and part that, indicating just how narrow-minded, and
quasi-fascistic, his simplistic view of language is. If we are to
take anything from these hearings, it must be the one clear moment
when he showed what we may expect out of him as a justice ““
his reference to the tactic taken by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in
regards to not answering specific questions. This should be clear
evidence of his highly selective approach to using precedent. Given
the ideological nature of his memos in the Reagan administration
and the emphasis of his private work, it was his responsibility to
have been more clear in his responses. As a result, the Senate
should be left with no choice but to reject his nomination.
By Omid Sanjideh Graduate student, comparative
literature