0 9678 777 000 5675 245 0

Wednesday, July 20, 2005
We have a nominee!

President Bush announced John G. Roberts last night to fill the slot on the Supreme Court vacated by the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor. The reaction has been interesting.

I'm sad to say that there has been a fairly obvious knee-jerk reaction on the part of most of your left-wing lobbying groups. I don't really like the President, his legislation, worldview, or anything, really. But I want to examine Judge Roberts before I form an opinion.

Roberts has argued cases 39 times before the Court, winning 25 of them. He knows how this thing works. He has only been a judge for two years, which means there isn't a substantial paper trail of his rulings. The left seems to be focusing on the fact that he had argued against the Roe v. Wade as an advocate. Abortion is going to be a major point of contention. However, when he was nominated for his current post at the DC appellate court, he stated simply that the Roe case was “"the settled law of the land."” I'd like a guy to say he supports a woman's right to choose, but I think we have to take this at face value.

Most of Roberts' experience was as a paid advocate for corporate, and in general, right-wing interests. This may indicate his personal leanings, but not necessarily. Every single one of us has done things we didn't believe in, or said things we didn't believe, just for money, sex, or even food. I'm not convinced this guy is another Scalia.

Judge Roberts may yet turn out to be a staunch conservative, but from what I've read of his writings, he has a substantial intellect. He has the capability to examine all sides of an issue, and it is my sincere hope that he will invariably choose to do so. I'll take a brilliant conservative on the court if I can get one. You can't buy insight, ask the president.

What's equally encouraging to me, is the right-wing reaction to Roberts. No less than Ann Coulter has spoken out against him. Ann is an interesting case. Clearly, one of the smartest people out there, and so terribly twisted and bitter. I wonder how she got that way, and if she can recover from it. Part of her statement read as follows:

"It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:

“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.'”

This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, 'hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job.'"

Like I said, Ann's a bright lady when it comes down to it. And if she is put off by John Roberts, then America may be in decent shape at the end of the day.

I'm not expecting that I will agree with every decision he sides with, but I have a feeling that even on the ones I do disagree with, Roberts will make a compelling, lucid argument that will make me think. I can live with that. Let's get this guy confirmed, and save filibustering and fundraising for the real nutjob that Bush puts forward when Rehnquist retires or dies.

Labels: , ,

posted at 7:34 PM

maystar maystar maystar designs | maystar designs |
Get awesome blog templates like this one from BlogSkins.com