Heart as Big as His Head?

Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was quoted as saying of Chief Justice nominee John Roberts, "I'm not too sure if his heart is as big as his head."

Perhaps my knowledge of the constitution and the history of judicial nominations is lacking in some regard, but I can't recall that "Heart as big as head" is given as a qualification for judicial appointment. The somewhat troubling visual image notwithstanding, judges at all levels are not given the charge of ruling on heart, but rather ruling on the facts of the case that stands before them.

I have watched with fascination the hearings. It is hard to imagine that more pomposity and arrogance exists in any triumvurate than exists in Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, and Charles Schumer, all Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. I was told that Joe Biden was actually worse, but since I am not a liberal Democrat, I will refrain from taking a dogmatic accusatory position on something I did not see. Ted Kennedy wanted Roberts to answer a question, but continually cut him off. Chairman Specter rightfully broke in to admonish Kennedy to shut up and let the man speak. Well ... not exactly in those words, but the point was clear. Unfortunately it was not clear to Kennedy, since a few minutes later Specter had to jump in yet again to admonish Kennedy to let Roberts answer.

One particular exchange of note to me, and a major opportunity Roberts missed (in my opinion), was during Durbin's questioning. Durbin asked about the variety of cases that Roberts had advised on, including a gay rights case involving the state of Colorado. Roberts said he gave advice to the side arguing for gay rights because they came to him first. He admitted that had the state come first, he would have given them legal advice. Innocent enough, I suppose ... Roberts' reasoning was that he was an attorney to serve a client. It was not up to him to sit in judgement on his clients; that was the job of the judge and jury.

But this questioning from Durbin was in the context of Roberts being an "idealogue" (which I think means "takes a position that a liberal Democrat would not take"). Durbin appeared dumbfounded that Roberts said he would have given legal advice to the State of Colorado had they asked him first. Durbin was disturbed that Roberts would give legal advice against so-called civil rights of homosexuals. (I say "so-called" because I don't remember the legal specifics of the case and it is extraneous to my point here.) Durbin wanted to know if there was any case that Roberts would turn down on principle.

All of that background to say this: Isn't turning a case down on principle the prime evidence of an idealogue? Does Durbin not know that he was asking Roberts to confess to being the very thing that Durbin was accusing him of? My suspicion was that if Roberts had answered "Yes, there are cases I would turn down," that Durbin would have accused him of being an idealogue. Of course, Durbin was accusing him of that anyway.

I thought the whole issue about the EEOC memo was fascinating. Kennedy originally brought it up (at least in the part that I saw, and later Durbin returned to it). The question was about a comment that the EEOC was "unAmerican" followed by the line "the truth of the matter notwithstanding." When the entire statement was read, it was clear that Kennedy was taking the statement out of context. Roberts tried to make that clear, but Kennedy just couldn't grasp it. Durbin later followed up demonstrating the same inability to grasp to not so subtle points of English grammar, and the explicit explanation by Roberts. Of course, why should you seek the truth when there is a political point to be made. Did anyone really think Kennedy, Schumer, and Durbin were seriously considering voting for Roberts?

I find myself wondering how these guys get elected. There seems little evidence of actual critical thinking skills. There is a lot of demogoguery. Questions involve long speeches that "lead the witness" in many cases, often followed by a token question mark. They are veritable rhetorical questions, meant to make a political point rather than elicit information.

What would be the effect of a judicial hearing that was limited to questions only? They would get a lot shorter for one. It would probably help the process as a whole as well. I think the Judiciary Committee should move immediately to stop speeches during questioning. A senator should be allowed to speak in one sentence, less than 25 words, that contains a clear question. There is no need for pontification. Senators' personal opinions about legal cases are irrelevant in judicial confirmation. I know this is a radical step, and I am not holding my breath that it would happen. But hey ... what's wrong with dreaming, right?

To be honest, I am not sure what to think of John Roberts as a justice. He has succeeded in dodging many questions. He could turn out to be the next David Souter, or Sandra Day O'Conner. It seems unlikely that he will be a Scalia or Thomas, and unlikely that he would be a Stevens or Ginsberg. But he will be the next Chief Justice, barring some unseen revelation of dirt.

Whatever the case, it is good to know that the gospel of Jesus Christ does not hang in the balance of Senate blowhards and dancing judicial nominees. When Christ said "I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," he full well knew the future of American jurisprudence and to be quite frank, the American judicial system is nothing compared to the dangers that other generations of the church faced. It is high time for the American church to quit depending on government, and let the gospel of Christ be foremost in our hearts and ministries.