{"id":4080,"date":"2005-09-12T20:13:19","date_gmt":"2005-09-13T00:13:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/09\/12\/roberts-umpire-analogy\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:57:25","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:57:25","slug":"roberts-umpire-analogy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/09\/12\/roberts-umpire-analogy\/","title":{"rendered":"roberts’ umpire analogy"},"content":{"rendered":"

I<\/strong><\/em>n his opening remarks<\/a> today, John Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he has no personal agenda. He compared the work of a Supreme Court justice to that of a baseball umpire, saying:<\/p>\n

<\/blockquote>\n
\n

“I will remember that it’s my job to call balls or strikes,<\/em><\/font> and not to pitch or bat.” <\/em><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"umpireG\" Seems to me, each umpire has an awful lot of discretion<\/font> determining the strike zone — based on personal preference, often<\/font> fickle, <\/font>and with no appeal. In the Supreme Court League, there aren’t<\/font> that many pitches that go straight down the middle.<\/font><\/p>\n

beer league softball<\/font>
\nthe umpire fastens<\/font>
\nher chest protector <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

out!safe!out!safe!theumpandthemanageroneshadow \"umpireGF\"<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

… by<\/font> Ed Markowski<\/strong><\/font><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

update<\/font><\/strong><\/em>: Over at Volokh Conspiracy<\/em>, <\/font><\/font>Jim Lindgren<\/font><\/a> has some similar<\/font> and telling remarks. (via <\/font>Prof. B<\/em><\/font>)<\/font><\/font><\/a> Also, <\/font>thoughts online<\/font><\/em><\/a> wants to<\/font> know “what’s roberts’ strikezone?”<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

p.s.<\/strong><\/em> I prefer Blind Justice to a Blind Umpire. And, I have to<\/font><\/font> wonder how a supposedly all-star issue-spotter missed seeing<\/font> the lameness of this umpire analogy.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\"umpireN\" <\/font>update<\/em><\/strong><\/font> (Sept. 17, 2005): On Sept. 13, Sen. Cornyn questioned<\/font><\/font> Judge <\/font><\/font>Roberts on his umpire anlaogy and philosophy, using Jim Lindgren’s <\/font>framework<\/font><\/a>. The interchange is a good one, and is reproduced <\/font>here<\/font><\/a> over at the Volokh Conspiracy<\/em>. Roberts says he would agree with the<\/font> second umpire who says “some are balls and some are strikes, and I call<\/font> them the way I see them.” Roberts explains: “I guess I liked the one in the <\/font>middle, because I do think there are right answers. . . . . And I think there<\/font> is meaning [in the Constitution] and I think there is meaning in your legislation. <\/font> And the job of a good judge is to do as good a job as possible to get the right<\/font> answer.” That man is sharp and articulate — and always well-prepared.<\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

update<\/strong><\/em> (Aug. 3, 2008): The topic of judge-as-umpire has been taken up again almost 4 years later at The Volokh Conspiracy<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0 (via Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice<\/em><\/a>, who yells from the cheap seats:\u00a0 Your Honor, you had to be there to call that pitch!)<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In his opening remarks today, John Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he has no personal agenda. He compared the work of a Supreme Court justice to that of a baseball umpire, saying: “I will remember that it’s my job to call balls or strikes, and not to pitch or bat.” Seems to me, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4080","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-13O","jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4080","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4080"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4080\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13034,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4080\/revisions\/13034"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4080"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4080"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4080"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}