How A Wise Senator Interviews A Canidate For The Supreme Court

The super majority of the Senators have already been questioned by President Bush in the advise phase of his consultation of them. Whether he took their advice when he nominated Harriet Miers remains to be seen. Many question if she is qualified for the position of Supreme Court Justice as I do myself after hearing of a Justice whom seemed to admit he did not know Constitutional law before becoming a Justice and of other Justices who behaved in an erratic or irrational style.

According to an AP article by Hope Yen, Sen. Arlen Specter said he wants to question candidate Miers about her views on privacy and abortion. The fact that he and other Senators want to question Justices on the issues displays that they believe that Justices are swayed by their worldviews and therefore biased. I can understand this as I voted for President Bush and earlier for President Clinton to be biased in their governmental actions. The complication of this scenario is that Justices are supposed to be unbiased. Senitor Spectre is concerned about back room deals where Mier's gave assurances that she would overturn Roe v. Wade. Biasness from that quarter may very well be a valid concern and so he can ask her and James Dobson about it and then make his call based on what he concludes to be the case. The attorney associations and Senators allied to the President try to maintain an illusion of lack of bias by urging the candidates not to answer on specific issues that might come before them. I agree with them ,despite my opinion that they are acting political, for the reason that sincere Justices need time to consult the law books and their staff of law clerks to determine how to correctly apply the law. Despite this they at least need display a knowledge of basic tenants and understanding of Constitution law so they can prove their competency to do the job.

Each Senator has a limited time to consult a candidate and limited information to go on. The situation that resulted from the consultation about Robert Bork appointment displays that Senators are happy to nitpick a Justice about the issues if too much information is available. Candidates have learned it is smart to remain as silent on issues as possible since they can justify their silence according to precedent.

What the Senators should do knowing this is to question the Candidates on the following. What the Declaration of Independence has to do with Constitutional Law? What is natural law and how is it reflected in the Constitution? What is the relation of Colonial period English Common Law as written by William Blackstone and others to the Constitution? Does statue law more trump precedent and is precedent law or advice? Is a Justice whom interprets the law in such a way that he or she knows or suspects may be false violating their oath of office and therefore committing perjury? What relationship is their between the Constitution and the Preamble of the Constitution? In what cases do legislatures have the right to make laws or regulations restricting the rights of the people? What is the jurisdiction of the federal courts? What is the extent and limitation of the judicial power, executive power, legislative powers? What do the Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Papers have to do with the federal government? Is the courts declaration about trimesters in Roe v. Wade or defining persons an exertion of the legislative power and if not how does it fall under judicial power? There are many questions that do not ask about issues that still test a potential Justices qualifications to sit on the bench and Senators would be wise to ask them in order to keep the citizens informed and verify they are consenting to a high-quality pick.