Court confirmation hearings matter

The death of Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist from cancer Sunday was largely overshadowed by ongoing media coverage of Hurricane Katrina’s tragic aftermath. But Americans cannot turn a blind eye to what is occurring in Washington. President George W. Bush announced Monday that he had nominated Judge John Roberts—already up for a position on the court as a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor—to succeed Rehnquist as the leader of the nation’s highest court.

Prior to President Bush’s announcement, it had appeared that Judge Roberts was a slam-dunk nominee with impeccable academic credentials and a wealth of experience arguing before the Supreme Court. Held in high esteem within Washington’s conservative legal circles, Judge Roberts had been confirmed to a post on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals just two years ago. The hearings regarding Judge Robert’s nomination, though delayed by the recent events in the Gulf Coast region, were expected to go smoothly due to his relatively short paper trail and sterling reputation for integrity and judicial acumen.

Now that he has been nominated to lead the Supreme Court, however, Judge Roberts’ record and credentials must be examined more meticulously. Just 50 years of age, Judge Roberts could be expected to exert unparalleled influence over the Court for decades to come. The Republican Party will continue to portray Judge Roberts as an honest, intelligent jurist and attempt to circumvent Democratic calls for another delay in confirmation proceedings before the Supreme Court’s next term begins in October.

Americans must demand a scrupulous review of Judge Roberts’ background from Congressional leaders. The same issues Chief Justice Rehnquist faced in his tenure—abortion, affirmative action, campaign finance reform, capital punishment and others, including stem cell research and gay marriage—will likely come before the Court. We have a right to know who will be presiding over Court sessions and assigning the Court opinions that have the power to impact millions of Americans. Americans should confirm Judge Roberts because we are confident in his abilities to lead the Court forward in the 21st century, not because we are told to be confident by his cronies.

Jeffrey Vaughn

Trinity ‘08

Students’ story a touching example

My reaction thus far to the administration’s handling of the Alcohol Law Enforcement situation has not been one of anger or defiance, but rather one of confusion and a desperate attempt to understand what its line of thinking is. The only way I can codify its stance is to compare it to a different issue of educational administration, at a different level of academia.

On the high school level, the issue of sex education is an extremely contentious and awkward one. In public schools, conservative faculty positions dictate that rather than teaching safe sex—which, it is believed, inherently accepts that sex amongst teenagers will take place—a message of abstinence can be the only acceptable pedagogical stance.

Studies have shown this to be not only an unrealistic way of approaching the issue, but an irresponsible one to boot: Sexual activity amongst high schoolers is on the rise, and refusing to arm teenagers—who are going to have sex one way or the other—with the tools to do it safely does not solve any problem. All it does is allow those who create policy to uphold their own arcane values.

Now fast forward to the collegiate level. While high school administrations feel uncomfortable confronting the issue of sex education, here at Duke the administration is uncomfortable and unwilling to address the issue of student drinking. Its transgression is twofold.

First, it insults the intelligence of students by refusing to acknowledge the issue altogether in its claims that a “meaningful dialogue” is being pursued—something that has historically gotten students and the administration nowhere. Second, like high school administrators who refuse to teach the points of safe sex, it refuses to provide students—who are going to drink whether the administration likes it or not—with a clear message as to where the administration wants the students to drink, be that in section or off campus.

I challenge administrators at Duke to grow up and do this, because Duke students are going to drink, and refusing to acknowledge this puts us all at an irresolvable impasse.

Dan Singer

Trinity ‘08