Role of Judges

A member of the Federalist Society at Yale Law School stating my own feelings (mentioned in my previous post, stated clearly in earlier ones) on John Roberts in a much clearer fashion [excluding the eyes part]:

I (Heart) John Roberts

...for many reasons (not the least of them those piercing baby blues).

One big reason is the way he keeps insisting on going back to first priciples when discussing the issue of judicial review. Judicial review doesn't exist because the Founders wanted to put all the difficult questions in the hands of unelected judges, to have the judiciary police the political branches. Rather, judicial review is a natural consequence of the role of courts to hear cases and controversies. When judges hear cases, they have an obligation to determine that laws under which parties are being sanctioned comport with the Constitution, and to not apply them if they don't (since the Constitution trumps ordinary law). The power of judicial review is ancillary to the courts' obligation to decide cases and controversies. That's why standing, mootness, etc, are so important: if there isn't actually a genuine case before them, courts have no business striking down even the most egregious violations of the Constitution.
Posted by Angus Dwyer at September 14, 2005 02:16 PM

This is why I'm not in Yale Law School. Very well put.

Technorati tags: John Roberts.