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.