As I watch newly empowered Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts begin his journey as an untouchable constitutional deliberator, I can't help but wonder what kind of legacy he will leave. While I am no legal scholar or elected official, I find it unnerving that both legal scholars and elected officials are asking themselves the same question. Additionally, with second Bush judicial nominee Harriet Miers' lack of any previous judicial experience, I am concerned with the emergent political stratagem: nominating people who lack written opinions and, therefore, vulnerabilities during the confirmation process.
The game of selecting and confirming a Supreme Court Justice is filled with irony, illogic and anti-capitalist undertones. In what other profession are candidates chosen based on the lack of general knowledge about them? In most processes where one is being selected (i.e. college admissions, corporate and athletic recruiting, public elections), those doing the selecting seek to know as much relevant information as possible about those up for hire.
If college admissions were like the current Supreme Court selection process, the Dartmouth Admissions Office would ask applicants for only incomplete application packages: "No SAT scores or writing samples, just a resume of extracurriculars." Major League Baseball teams would draft young players only on their bodily dimensions and not statistics. It is because college admissions offices and professional sports teams collect, analyze and extrapolate tremendous amounts of information about candidates that they can make educated decisions about which candidates will bring the most success to each organization.
These selection systems promote the idea that the people most qualified, most likely to succeed and most likely to benefit the greatest number will be chosen. These systems reflect the capitalist ideas underlying our country; they drive individuals to be better, to reach for their dreams. However, the Supreme Court is anomalous. If you are too successful in your field, you have undoubtedly left a paper trail. You have also undoubtedly provided your opposition with the rope with which to hang you.
I do believe that Roberts demonstrated an impressive intellect and mastery of constitutional law. Miers will possibly do the same. However, this is not enough. These competency factors are only part of the criteria necessary for our government to make the appropriate analysis and subsequent decision. There is a need to know how a nominee will more specifically interpret the constitution.
In explaining his vote in favor of confirming John Roberts, Senate Judiciary Committee member Herbert Kohl, D-Wisc., remarked, "I will vote my hopes today and not my fears." This attitude would be fine if Kohl was voting for his high school's senior class president and was uncertain as to what would be the prom theme. However, when fears and hopes involve the core values of democracy and the freedoms and rights guaranteed to the citizens, I would hope that the elected leaders of our country would have some more concrete information on which to base decisions.
The job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the constitution. While Roberts' reasons for avoiding questions dealing with how he would interpret certain instances were eloquent and intelligent, the fact remains that he did not give a complete indication of how he would do his job. America takes pride in the transparency of public actions. It is this transparency that ensures fairness and equality. Why then should the selection of a Supreme Court justice be characterized by opacity and uncertainty?
When such importance and influence lies in the Senate's decision, it is unfair that our public officials are forced to decide partially in the dark. It is supremely ironic: when judges hear cases they are blind to everything but the facts; when congress must confirm the judges, they are blind to the facts themselves. With the upcoming confirmation hearings of Harriet Miers, I sincerely hope that she will provide America with more insight into the justice she will become and not remain shrouded in a veil of unanswered questions.
