John Roberts began filling in his empty canvass before the Senate Judiciary Committee today. Constitutionalists liked what they heard. "Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around," Roberts told the committee. "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them.... I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat." The baseball rulebook isn't a "living document." Neither is the Constitution.

I like the baseball ana-logy. But isn't the DH kinda like the "emanating penumbra" of the right to privacy? And with all of the umps practically making up their own strike zones instead of following the rulebook (when was the last time you saw an ump call the high strike ?) you have a clear demonstration of activism. Maybe it is just human nature to give into the temptation of power and disobey clear guidelines and the rule of law?

Although, maybe the baseball ana-logy reveals some hopeful signs since at least MLB has attempted to reign in the umps over the last 4-5 seasons and the strike zone is at least becoming more consistent across the board. But where is the oversight to reign in the judges? Not the GOP, or the people, or Congress so far.

Btw, Scalia or Thomas should have been nominated for Chief Justice, Roberts in no way, shape, or form deserves that station yet.

You had me at hello.

No, the DH is not "kinda like" the 'right' to privacy. The DH was not instituted by the officials, but by the legislative power vested in the American League (and thank God).

The strike zone is a tougher call (pun). We would have to know whether individual umpires are deciding not to enforce the new zone, or merely having difficulty adjusting to the new standard (or even whether they're all blind and have a tough time telling where the pitch is).

Biden is discussing the strike zone issue.

Regarding the strike zone, it provides a very nice anology to judges. It is the ump's resposibility to apply the rules to tough cases, just as we need judges to apply law to particular, sometimes tough, cases. Some people with "strict constructionist" attitudes act as though judges could be completely replaced by machines, but they are wrong. We can't get rid of the need for good judgment in human affairs. Nevertheless, the fact that we need the ump/judge to use his good judgment does not mean that he is permitted to just make it up as he goes along. This is what liberals don't get.

Since we are on the baseball ana*logy, Can we get a Pinch Hitter for GWB?
I think the President struck out - looking!

What does Judge Roberts say about the right to privacy? Is it protected like the right to get married or the right to a fair trial?

Skeptic,

That's the value of most strict constructionalists being reservists. Where the constitution is overly vague, the court does not really need to decide, especially in regards to decisions of democratically elected legislatures.