One of the things I find truly amazing about the process of approving a Supreme Court nominee is the process by which every thought, utterance, and written opinion produced by a nominee is parsed to the nth degree and beyond. Partisans on both sides are leaving no stone unturned in an effort to find something, anything to bolster their case for our against the nominee in question.
There are people poring over John Roberts’ writings from when he was a clerk to then-associate Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist in the early 1980’s. Think about that for a second; how would your past hold up to that sort of scrutiny? I’m not certain I even want to think about that. Thankfully, I haven’t been nominated for a lifetime sinecure on the Supreme Court. I’ll save y’all the trouble- I’m WAY too Liberal for all y’all. Of course, the fact that I don’t have a J.D behind my name doesn’t help matters, either.
The picture of Roberts that seems to be emerging, at least in my fevered, highly partisan imagination, is of a very comptent, but frighteningly Conservative legal mind. More often than not, Roberts seems to side with the state over the individual, which should scare the hell out of anyone who values personal liberties in this post-9.11 world.
More than anything else, Roberts seems to be a complete and total enigma. The man’s nickname ought to be tabula rasa, for God’s sake. John Roberts is a man who by all accounts is a brilliant jurist, and yet has somehow left no discernible imprint. The task for Roberts’ opponents is proving to be somewhat akin to nailing Jello to a wall. Finding something that will stick to this “stealth” candidate has become a challenge of epic proportions.
My own feelings on John Roberts are fairly straightforward. While he is no doubt a brilliant and capable jurist, he seems entirely too Conservative to be allowed a lifetime sinecure on the highest court in the land. Y’all may not believe this, but I would probably be saying the same thing about John Roberts if he was a flaming Liberal. When it comes to the law, the middle of the road seems a good place to be. A seat on the Supreme Court should not be an opportunity for the Left or the Right to further their agenda. Cases should be decided on matters of law, not ideology.
John Roberts may be a Conservative who is willing to rule on matters of law without legislating from the bench. I’m just not willing to take that risk- especially given the clueless, Right-wing zealot who nominated him. To say that I cannot trust John Roberts, as much as I might like to, would be something of an understatement.
Roberts, while no doubt brilliant and highly capable, is the wrong nominee at precisely the wrong time. This nation deserves better. This nation deserves moderation; we’ve seen enough zealotry these days.
Hm...
I disagree with you on almost everything, content wise, in this post.
Nonetheless, it is a great bit of work. This post should be filed under "Best Of" or something...
Great work!