Topic: Objectivity and Fairness of Judges
Senator: Sessions
Date: SEPTEMBER 14, 2005
Contents
SESSIONS: You have said that, before your court, you are impressed with the objectivity and fairness that the judges bring. Is the ideal of a blindfolded justice, a neutral umpire, is that a romantic, naive ideal? Or is that something that you believe we can and should strive to achieve in America?
ROBERTS: Well, I do know that there are sophisticated academic theorists, people who spend a lot more time theorizing in this area than I do -- and a lot smarter than I am addressing these issues -- who, some of whom conclude that in particular cases, it is difficult to do, it is different to avoid making the law while you are interpreting it. And they kind of throw up their hands and suggest that we shouldn't even try, therefore. And I don't agree with that. I think, as a practical matter, as a pragmatic matter, judges every day know the difference between interpreting the law and making the law. Every day, judges put aside their personal views and belief and apply the law, whether the result is one they would agree with as a legislator or not agree with. The question is what the law is, not what they think it should be. I have seen that on the court of appeals. I have seen that as a practicing lawyer before the court. That is the ideal. I'm sure judges -- I'm sure justices -- don't always achieve it in every case because it is a human endeavor, and error is going to infect any human endeavor. But that is the ideal and I think good judges working hard can not only achieve it, but also achieve it together in a collegial way and benefit from the insight and views of each other.
SESSIONS: Well, I thank you for that. And I would share those views. And I absolutely believe the strength of our nation is our good legal system.
Contents
Prev
Next
Last
