Topic: Court Opinions that are Political or Social Policy Instead of Law
Senator: Sessions
Date: SEPTEMBER 14, 2005
Contents
SPECTER: Senator Sessions.
SESSIONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for your leadership as we move forward expeditiously, I think, today, and I think in a helpful way. I think the hearings have been very good. And, Judge Roberts, I salute you for your excellent manner and your forthrightness and professionalism as you answer these questions. You know, I hope we are moving away, Senator Feinstein, from divisiveness. In some ways, we do have a divided country. But in other ways I think we have the potential to move together. And I frankly believe that one thing that causes divisiveness and frustration and angst is when a Supreme Court would render an opinion that really is more a political or social policy decision rather than a legal decision. And when they say it amounts to the Constitution, a constitutional provision, then that Supreme Court opinion can only be changed by two-thirds of both Houses and three-fourths of the state. Do you understand that danger, Judge Roberts, in opinions and is that perhaps one reason you think a judge should show modesty?
ROBERTS: Well, it is part of what I mean when I say a certain humility should characterize the judicial function. Judges need to appreciate that the legitimacy of their action is confined to interpreting the law and not making it. And if they exceed that function and start making the law, I do think that raises legitimate concerns about legitimacy of their authority to do that.
SESSIONS: Well, I would observe that the American people are beginning to believe that is occurring, and I think it does threaten the legitimacy of the court in a way that all of us who love the law should be concerned. And I do love the law. And I'm a big critic of the courts on these kind of activist cases. But I have practiced full time before federal judges. And as I said earlier, I believe, day after day, justice is done.
Contents
Prev
Next
Last
