How to judge a judge

This month the Senate has been in hearings about the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Do you think there should be litmus tests for court appointees -- questions, for example, about religion, abortion or the use of torture? What questions would you ask if given a chance?

Along with millions of Americans, I was impressed when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, during his confirmation hearings, used the analogy of a judge being like an umpire.

He said, “No one goes to a game to see the umpire. An umpire shouldn’t pitch or bat.” For anyone who has played or watched baseball, we know that games often hinge on the call of the umpire. During confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito, the Senate should look carefully at his “strike zone.” To continue with this analogy, some umpires are known for a large strike zone. Some are known for a narrow zone. But even the most conservative of umpires and players agree that there is a “fair zone”; everyone cries foul and the umpire is fired if this zone is missed too frequently. I think this agreed-upon “fair strike zone” can be looked upon as a litmus test for court appointees.

I think the senators are asking Alito the right questions, although with too much pontificating. The two questions that I believe are most crucial are Do women have a constitutional right to abortion? and Is every American bound by the law without exception?

This second issue is directed specifically to the dubious rights of the executive branch to wiretap without warrants and torture and detain whoever is considered a possible terrorist. I would not vote for the confirmation of any nominee unless both questions were answered with an unequivocal “yes.”

I think that women must be guaranteed the right to abortion for the following reasons: First, we still live in a society in which girls and women are too often solely responsible for the care and protection of their children, many times without the resources to adequately do so. Second, we live in a culture that condones and promotes violence against women and children in countless ways. (It is too sickening to look at statistics of molestations, domestic violence, abductions, and rape in the United States.) And third, women are not adequately represented in any of the three branches of government. It is a serious question whether a Supreme Court with only one female judge can fairly consider a woman’s right to choose.

Likewise I could not vote for a nominee who supports the idea that any individual can be exempt from the laws by which all citizens have agreed to live. The most treasured resource of the United States is its allegiance to freedom and democracy for all of its citizens. However sloppily we go about this, it is unacceptable to have a situation in which individuals are spied on, tortured or detained without due process, even though this has been done in the past.

As Zen practitioners, it is important to pay attention to our role as fellow citizens and to not assume someone else is doing the painstaking work of creating a just and fair democracy.

REV. CAROL AGUILAR

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

The line between our judicial branch and our executive and legislative branches thins as these confirmation processes become ever more politicized.

I think some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have behaved badly wen confronting Samuel Alito, and I like the approach Mark Tushnet takes in his article “Is a judicial ‘agenda’ always so bad?” in the Jan. 12 issue of the Los Angeles Times.

Tushnet says that each of us has “core beliefs” that rarely change dramatically. This reminds me of what my wise wife often says: “We are now who we’ve always been!” I think that questions about a candidate’s perceptions of our reality would be helpful: “Are human beings, by nature, intrinsically ‘good’ or ‘bad’?” “Who is your God or god?” and “Has God made us in the divine image, or do we make God in ours?” “How is it that we are free to make choices: to create, to reason, to love, to live in harmony with others?”

And Tushnet talks about “constitutional visions.” I especially appreciate his closing sentences: “Neither senators nor nominees seem to trust the American people to understand that constitutional law is more complicated than what you can get in a sound bite on the evening news. We can.”

Questions asked should go beyond making sure the nominees are good and able people who have clear views about the Constitution and its role that will enable this country to survive and prosper as a society and a republic. Questions asked should demand answers with more depth than “upholding the law”, “honoring the Constitution” or “maintaining an open mind.” A professor friend says that’s “just so much smoke and fog, an elaborate charade intentionally designed to avoid speaking frankly and to confuse the innocent.” Repeating endless litanies of such attitudes, which should go without saying, wastes everyone’s good time and seems to me like having to listen to someone say, “I am honest. Honestly, I am really honest.”

A candidate’s “constitutional vision” can be examined best with real-world questions about perspectives on social, economic and political issues.

Justices’ decisions affect our real world. As David Savage pointed out in an article in the Jan. 16 L.A. Times, within weeks of the new nominee taking his seat on the Supreme Court, cases will come before it dealing with the separation of church and state, campaign finance reform, our environment, abortion and the powers of the presidency. Let’s give up the pretension that judges do not have core beliefs, convictions, world views and agendas or that, if they do, we really don’t need to know what they are. We do.

(THE VERY REV’D CANON) PETER D. HAYNES