Mr. Roberts Neighborhood
The
Washington Post editorialized that Supreme Court Justice Nominee John
Roberts is “a man of substance and seriousness.” The LA times reported
that he is a “Judicious choice.” Almost. The New York Times brings us a
slice of what we know best. Trying to create controversy where there is
none, the editorial page of the old grey bitc… er… lady, says that the
white house Failed to mention Roberts is a member of the Federalist
Society. This act of omission concerns the New York Times which writes
that only “washington insiders” knew about it. Hmm. Every other
publication and major newspaper seemed to know about it. Maybe the New
York Times needs a better Washington Editor. The times editorializes on
the failure of the white house to “reveal” Roberts’ affiliation with the
Federalist Society. “This apparent contradiction raises questions about
how forthcoming Mr. Roberts and the white house has been.” Ah those
contradictions! And those forthcomings! Looks like the desperate
democrats are fishing for documents to sink Roberts. The times goes on;
“for a politically well-connected lawyer and sitting judge, Mr. Roberts
has a remarkably opaque record when it comes to his views on
controversial issues.” This is good news for two reasons. Personal views
on controversial issues like abortion should not be relevant in
deciding the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice, and the “opaqueness”
is a virtue in itself, indicating a solid commitment to foundation of
the constitution rather than the whims of judicial activism. We will see
further demands from most media outlets demanding for papers and other
memos from Robers’ Past. This will be the Democrats last leg to stand
on, exhausting two of three reasons to oppose a nomination; claim
insufficient consultation by the white House and two; paint the nominee
as a right-wing ideologue. As Duncan Currie of the Weekly Standard
writes in this week’s edition, it will make the “aggressor look like the
aggrieved.”
Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and international
consultant, wrote in the Washington Times this morning that recognizes
Roberts’ modesty and willingness to strictly interpret the constitution,
rather than make law. Roberts will bring the Supreme Court’s
Constitutional law closer to the people who ratified it. He is an
originalist. There is no place for the questioning of his views on Roe
within this debate. (Or his wife’s)
But there are still hounds.
Salivating and leading the charge is Sen. Chucky “Cheese” Schumer, whom
John J. Miller of the National Review calls “The Inquisitor.”
Interviewed by my host Greg Corombos on Dateline: Washington, Miller
spoke in his vacuous, raspy voice (inbetween French jokes) that Schumer
scored a perfected 1600 on his SAT. But Schumer’s greatest
accomplishment doesn’t lie within his degree of Harvard Law, it lies
within his main talent of grandstanding. First was his attack on guns
inside the beltway. Then was his declaration that pro-life activists
should avoid fines by declaring themselves insolvent. Schumer adores the
spotlight. He craves it. Let the inquisition begin.
But some no
likey Roberts… and its not based on his achievements or his
qualifications. Roberts has and undoubtedly will not be scrutinized on
these things. No friends, it’s based on his skin color, his style of
dress and his… name. Oh isn’t the quota patrol ironic! But seriously…
“John Roberts.” How much more conventional can you get? And how much
more of a politically incorrect president can we have to go so far as
electing a (gasp!) white male to the supreme court!
NJO: Originally posted on the blog Feathers of Steel at liberabit.blogspot.com.
