Preserve the Balance
Team Supreme Blog
Day One - From the Hearing Room
Today, the Senate Judiciary Commitee held the first day of confirmation hearings for John Roberts. I was fortunate to be in the hearing room -- and be able to spend time with some key coaliton partners, like the leadership of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Alliance for Justice, the NAACP and others. It also provided me with the opportunity to speak with key staff of the Judiciary Committee and other key allies in the hearing room. Being there also reinforced how important this debate is for the future of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality.
While today was mostly confined to opening remarks, speeches from Senators and introductions of John Roberts and his family, little clues emerged on what the American public can expect over the next few days. Senators, in their opening remarks, talked of "judicial activism", "unenumerated rights" and the proper role of the Judiciary. These aren't abstract legal theories. They have real and true consequences for the gay community. Decisions made by John Roberts, if confirmed as chief justice, will decide whether or not the United States Constitution protects us all.
While today was mostly confined to opening remarks, speeches from Senators and introductions of John Roberts and his family, little clues emerged on what the American public can expect over the next few days. Senators, in their opening remarks, talked of "judicial activism", "unenumerated rights" and the proper role of the Judiciary. These aren't abstract legal theories. They have real and true consequences for the gay community. Decisions made by John Roberts, if confirmed as chief justice, will decide whether or not the United States Constitution protects us all.
Comments
Being an active supporter of the HRC, I was first concerned about Roberts with the very first email sent out after his nomination. I am now questioning my concern. He has made it clear that he simply did his job for some of the cases in the past, and when arguing in front of the supreme court, his goal was to win whatever side he was hired for. He seems to understand that it is the supreme courts role to judge laws fairly and unbiased, which would mean judging the law based on the arguments presented by the lawyers of each side of the case. Isn't that fair? To go back to his baseball analogies - he said the supreme court is like the umpire of a baseball game. I admit I am a little naive, but I think he might actually be relatively moderate and fair. As a gay male, I admit that I am concerned about his views of sexuality, but if he is as fair as he claims, would he not set aside his personal issues for a case? After all, I think it is possible for someone to follow the theories of a republic and not buy into the corruption of greed and morals. I am not saying that I fully endorse Roberts, but I feel that maybe we should listen and give a chance - isn't that what we (as the GLBT) are asking for? In order for us to make a justified opinion, I think we should listen to both the pros and cons about him as a justice - and be an umpire, kind of like the way he might as well be. Thanks for reading.
.