In his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Bush nominee to replace the late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, John Roberts, drew
an analogy between the Supreme Court and umpires in baseball:
Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire. . . . And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.
It is an interesting analogy Judge Roberts draws. And it seems to me to be an excellent argument for why Judge Roberts must answer the questions put to him by the Senate. As any baseball fan knows, umpires are not uniform in the delineation of the strike zone. Some are "hitters" umpires. Some are "pitchers" umpires. Some call the high strike. Some call the outside pitch.
And when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States, it is important that we know what Judge Roberts' "strike zone" is. His record, the part that was not concealed by the Bush Administration, gives many of us pause regarding Judge Roberts' "strike zone." His stated antipathy for the right to privacy, for voting rights measures, for discrimination remedies, etc., demands followup. What does your "rulebook" say about these things Judge Roberts?
One last thing. Around the time Judge Roberts was expressing disdain for the right to privacy, there was a a dispute over Pine Tar:
Baseball's Rule 1.10(b) states that "the bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from the end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18-inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game."
Martin was aware for some time that Brett's bat, slathered with pine tar, violated the rules. But the wily Yankee skipper waited until the best possible moment to bring this to the attention of the umpires. "We'd seen it earlier," Don Zimmer (who coached third base at the time) remembered. "But you don't say anything when the guy doesn't get a hit." Martin began explaining the violation to McClelland, who -- after holding the bat across home plate to see if Brett had hit the ball with the pine-tarred area of it -- called Brett out. The Yankees had won, 4-3.
Brett was furious. His eyes bulging, he came charging out of the Royals' dugout and went straight for McClelland. As his teammates and umpire Joe Brinkman tried to restrain him, Brett hurled obscenities at anyone and everyone. For the first time in his career, Brett had hit a game-losing home run.
. . . The brouhaha continued after the game, as the Royals immediately filed a protest with the American League. Within a week, AL president Lee MacPhail decided to uphold the protest, ruling that Brett's bat did not violate "the spirit of the rules." The decision restored Brett's home run, prompting Yankee owner George Steinbrenner to snarl, "I wouldn't want to be Lee MacPhail living in New York."
Judge Roberts, was Lee McPhail correct? Did he act in a way that was consistent with Rule 1.10? And do you believe Constitutional questions, where the language is generally broad and non-specific, can adhere to the "strict construction" approach employed by umpire Tim McClelland?
Update [2005-9-12 22:12:6 by Armando]: Crooks and Liars has the video.
Ed Kilgore has some questions.
