Ran across this from Bruce Weber in the Times yesterday:
It was in September 2005, just as I was starting research for a book about umpires, that the man who would become chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr., elevated my subjects to the central metaphorical role in American jurisprudence.
“Judges are like umpires,” Judge Roberts declared in the opening remarks to his own confirmation hearings. “Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role.”
Whadda ya think? Judges=Umps?
Oh, and if you haven’t read Weber’s book, it’s worth checking out. Here is an excerpt.
Judges = Umpires: is it me or is this a non-revelation? I mean, yeah sure, but wasn't that obvious? Heck, they even have a thing called an "appeal" play.
Oh yes, judges = umpires, but Roberts' statement as to why, and thus his analogy, is total BS. Judges make rules all the time, by interpreting what's in front of them, which sometimes isn't clear, as anyone who's ever tried to interpret a statue can tell you. Umps do the same thing - not everything is simple application of a clear rule, as anyone who watches how different umps call balks, and the strikezone, well knows.
Anyone know if Cone's testimony before the Senate will be on TV? I'd like to see what he says.
First of all, it depends on what kind of judge you are talking about. Some judges get the power to decide facts. Some judges get the power to decide law. Some get both. The idea is to be fair and just. Judges are people and bring to their decision making their own ideas and ideals.
Ever hear of a Brandeis brief? It is a recognized legal argument based on statistical analysis and public policy. More than just calling balls and strikes, they craft decisions based on the needs of the time.
Judges do justice. If that means interpreting the law to say it includes something not thought of before, is that legislating or deciding. Don't by into the Republican bullshit. Without judges willing to implement social policy, we wouldn't have Brown v School Board or Roe v Wade. How can you put your trust in the Federalists, who, after all, denied women and blacks the right to vote.
Judges are not umpires. And the more you think they are or should be, the less justice there will be. More justice; more peace.
good points guys - i agree.
[2] shaun as far as i can tell the whole thing will be televised.
today is opening statements. tomorrow begins questioning.
not sure when witnesses start providing testimony, but i too would love to see coney. i never really concerned myself with witnesses in any previous sc nominees - does the judiciary committee get to ask witnesses questions?
[4] Thanks for the info, ms october. I believe the Senators get to question the witnesses, but I am not sure. The last hearing I watched on TV was 15 years ago.
Hmm, good points. I guess umpires = judges, but judges > umpires (though, again, that seems obvious, I just wasn't thinking that deeply about it before). Good stuff.
When I next see baseball umpires, who can't even make correct calls from game to game at any level of play, start making rulings as to an adolescent girl's Constitutional rights being violated because of an illegal strip search conducted by individuals ill qualified to perform such an endeavor at a friggen school, I might be inclined to surmise Umpires = Judges.
Until that time however, they aren't even close.
After all, the Harry Wendelstedt Umpire School lasts a mere five weeks.
Try getting through confirmation hearings for a seat on the U.S.S.C. in the Senate after having such "qualifications" in the legal field...
Hell, try getting appointed to preside over Traffic Court behind that shit!
You can't even be a police officer in five weeks!
What’s next? Veterinary Assistants = Medical Specialists?
C'mon people! You're smarter than that! At least I hope you are!
Please stop having children if you're not...