Durbin’s Dumb Question

Sen. Durbin has been off-base before, today’s question at the Roberts nomination hearing takes the cake:

“Judge Roberts … Will you restrict the personal freedoms we enjoy as Americans or will you expand them?” asked Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)….

The article does not reveal Roberts’s answer, but the correct answer, of course, is “Neither.”

Say What? (15)

  1. Aaron Powell September 12, 2005 at 11:31 pm | | Reply

    While I’m sympathetic to judging the question as silly, it should be noted that “restrict” means both to limit and to keep in check. So, in that sense, Roberts ought to be restricting freedoms and Durbin has not posed a false dilemma.

  2. actus September 12, 2005 at 11:49 pm | | Reply

    Whats off base about the question? it sounds rather important. I suppose it is quite off base to expect a meaningful answer.

  3. Stephen September 13, 2005 at 10:08 am | | Reply

    Well, Durbin is trying to get Roberts to reveal his thinking on contraception and abortion. In short, he wants to know if he’d repeal Roe v. Wade.

    Roe v. Wade certainly gives some people “freedoms.” However it takes “freedom” away from others. For instance, babies who are aborted have certainly lost any freedom they might have had. Men, who have no say in abortion, have lost the freedom of determining the fate of their own progeny.

    Yes, I can certainly see why actus wants an answer. He wants the Senate to reject any candidate who might be concerned with the “freedoms” of children and men, in favor of a candidate who is concerned only with the “freedoms” of women who want abortions.

  4. nobody important September 13, 2005 at 10:11 am | | Reply

    It may sound important, but it’s just another piece of Democratic rhetoric posed as a question, a pathetic attempt to pin the “anti-choice” label on Roberts. Durbin is so clever, isn’t he?

    The part that makes it ridiculous is the “or will you expand them” phrase. The Supreme Court is not constitutionally charged with expanding freedom; the people already have their freedoms. They are endowed with them by their Creator, not by government.

    The Court’s role is to be a check on the other two branches to ensure that they are not restricting those freedoms.

  5. actus September 13, 2005 at 10:17 am | | Reply

    “Roe v. Wade certainly gives some people “freedoms.” However it takes “freedom” away from others. For instance, babies who are aborted have certainly lost any freedom they might have had. Men, who have no say in abortion, have lost the freedom of determining the fate of their own progeny.”

    That would be a very meaningfull answer if roberts gave it.

    “He wants the Senate to reject any candidate who might be concerned with the “freedoms” of children and men, in favor of a candidate who is concerned only with the “freedoms” of women who want abortions.”

    First I’d like to know if that is the kind of candidate we have. Then the senate will decide.

  6. Stephen September 13, 2005 at 10:42 am | | Reply

    Well, yes, my answer is “meaningful.”

    Durbin has the right to go on a fishing expedition. He can do anything he wants, really. He can ask Roberts for his opinion on gasoline prices.

    Roberts is correct in refusing to give an answer. He should just each case by its own merits.

    And, if he is in favor of repealing Roe v. Wade, as I hope he is, I also hope that he is outfoxing Durbin, and actus, by gaming them.

  7. actus September 13, 2005 at 10:47 am | | Reply

    “Durbin has the right to go on a fishing expedition. He can do anything he wants, really. He can ask Roberts for his opinion on gasoline prices.”

    I think someone should ask roberts for the originalist justification for the constitutionality of FEMA.

  8. Sandy P September 13, 2005 at 12:27 pm | | Reply

    Durbin’s a liar. Remember his statement after talking w/Roberts?

    Liar, Liar, Eddie Haskell is a liar.

  9. Rich Cook September 13, 2005 at 4:46 pm | | Reply

    I think someone should ask Durbin about the “Right of Privacy”. His past attempts at asking cogent questions give doubt about his current attempts. In this case past perfomance is an indicator of future performance.

  10. Chetly Zarko September 14, 2005 at 12:38 am | | Reply

    John,

    I have to disagree about the correct answer being “neither”. The correct answer is “it depends on the individual case” and “what your definitions of restrict, expand, and freedom are”. “Neither” implies that he’ll always maintain the status quo on that continuum, when in reality he might both expand and contract freedom in different ways in different cases depending on the individual case.

  11. ts September 14, 2005 at 12:42 am | | Reply

    John is right – it is a ridiculous question. Rights do not come from the government – read the Declaration of Independence. What courts restrict and expand is the authority of the government.

  12. John Rosenberg September 14, 2005 at 9:12 am | | Reply

    actus/Chetly – (Wow! How often have I given you guys the same answer?)

    I think the question was ridiculous because it is not part of a judge’s job description — even a Chief Justice of the United States — either to restrict or expand individual rights. His/her obligation is to protect the rights that have been granted (or, arguably in the case of the Constitution, recognized) by the Constitution or legislation.

    Moreover, the question was stupid because even a potential judge who did have a hidden agenda to restrict or expand rights would have to be a fool to answer either “restrict” or “expand,” as either answer would (and should) disqualify him/her from being approved.

  13. Tim Gannon September 14, 2005 at 12:39 pm | | Reply

    Another correct anwser is “Will you?”

  14. actus September 14, 2005 at 4:58 pm | | Reply

    “I think the question was ridiculous because it is not part of a judge’s job description — even a Chief Justice of the United States — either to restrict or expand individual rights.”

    It doesn’t matter if its a part of their job description. (and some people think it is a part of their job description) What matters is that it does happen.

    “Moreover, the question was stupid because even a potential judge who did have a hidden agenda to restrict or expand rights would have to be a fool to answer either “restrict” or “expand,” as either answer would (and should) disqualify him/her from being approved.”

    Exactly why I said its off base to expect a meaningful answer

  15. Chetly Zarko September 18, 2005 at 2:51 am | | Reply

    John,

    I wasn’t passing on the question’s obvious ridiculousness, of which there is no doubt, so your reply only applies to Actus, who thinks it was a useful question. I was only saying that your answer wasn’t the appropriate non-answer that Roberts sh/would give. The appropriate non-answer wasn’t “neither” it was “neither, both, and one or the other at different times”. This should illustrate the uselessness of the question – if the question is so vague and encompassing that a good answer is literally everything, then its a useless question.

Say What?