, in his initial remarks to Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, said this:
"Judge Roberts, if you're confirmed, you will be the first Supreme Court justice in the 21st century. The basic question is this: Will you restrict the personal freedoms we enjoy as Americans or will you expand them?"
Am I wrong, or is that a stupid question? Is it really John Roberts' role --is it any
judge's place-- to "expand" personal freedoms? Won't John Roberts' task be to interpret the Constitution and respect the rule of law? That is
what a judge is supposed to do. A judge is not
supposed to invent new freedoms or declare rights not found in the Constitution. And what new "freedoms" does Durbin
have in mind? Is abortion-on-demand not enough? Should there be a right to infanticide, as well? How far should "personal freedoms" be expanded? It seems there is a lot of focus on rights, but little attention paid to responsibilities. And that's unfortunate.Durbin addresses Roberts......and Durbin questions Roberts