Judge John G. Roberts
I know many of you aren't going to agree with me on this, but seriously - it could be worse. It could be worse for the liberals and worse for the conservatives. Believe me, it could've been worse either way.
That said, I'm okay with John Roberts' nomination thus far because of this: While he has proven himself to be a faithful conservative throughout his career, he has very little judicial record behind him. The interest groups can attack what he might do, but they can barely attack what he has already done. And who really knows what Roberts will do from the bench? Already, the dems are jumping all over the Roe v. Wade remarks. Rather than find it positive that he said he would uphold the law of the land (granted, that was as an appellate judge), they are jumping all over the brief he wrote for the government in which he said he thought Roe should be overturned. None of this means Judge Roberts will get on the bench and go after Roe or women's rights in general. And I know it doesn't mean that he won't do that, either.
But that's the point here. It's hard to say how Roberts will turn out, what his voting pattern will be. Look at Sandra Day O'Connor, who was thought to be a staunch conservative prior to her appointment. Her voting record over the years proved otherwise. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was considered moderate prior to her appointment, but she's certainly holding down the left side of the bench. Obviously, Roberts will likely maintain his conservative position and ideology for the most part, but there's room for moderation too. In his short career on the D.C. Court of Appeals, Roberts hasn't locked himself in to too many positions.
I like the fact that President Bush nominated someone young with solid legal credentials. Even many of the democrats have noted Roberts' brilliance in the law and decency as a human being. I also find his lack of judicial record appealing rather than troublesome. I think the confirmation hearing will be interesting, and I expect Chuck Schumer to continue on his ridiculous tirade against Roberts' evasive responses. Maybe we'll get some straight answers as to Roberts' views on some of these important social issues, or maybe not. Either way, I'm not going to crucify this guy right out of the gate.
Like I said, it could've been worse. Also, there's an interesting point made by Jared, my fellow Court-watcher over at Stream of Consciousness, with a link to Sentencing Law and Policy. For those of us opposed to the death penalty, Roberts may turn out to be a very good thing.
And one more small point: When President Bush was making his introductory remarks last night, did anyone else notice that he appeared to be trying not to laugh? I kept laughing because I thought he was going to bust out at any moment with the giggles. Just an observation...
That said, I'm okay with John Roberts' nomination thus far because of this: While he has proven himself to be a faithful conservative throughout his career, he has very little judicial record behind him. The interest groups can attack what he might do, but they can barely attack what he has already done. And who really knows what Roberts will do from the bench? Already, the dems are jumping all over the Roe v. Wade remarks. Rather than find it positive that he said he would uphold the law of the land (granted, that was as an appellate judge), they are jumping all over the brief he wrote for the government in which he said he thought Roe should be overturned. None of this means Judge Roberts will get on the bench and go after Roe or women's rights in general. And I know it doesn't mean that he won't do that, either.
But that's the point here. It's hard to say how Roberts will turn out, what his voting pattern will be. Look at Sandra Day O'Connor, who was thought to be a staunch conservative prior to her appointment. Her voting record over the years proved otherwise. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was considered moderate prior to her appointment, but she's certainly holding down the left side of the bench. Obviously, Roberts will likely maintain his conservative position and ideology for the most part, but there's room for moderation too. In his short career on the D.C. Court of Appeals, Roberts hasn't locked himself in to too many positions.
I like the fact that President Bush nominated someone young with solid legal credentials. Even many of the democrats have noted Roberts' brilliance in the law and decency as a human being. I also find his lack of judicial record appealing rather than troublesome. I think the confirmation hearing will be interesting, and I expect Chuck Schumer to continue on his ridiculous tirade against Roberts' evasive responses. Maybe we'll get some straight answers as to Roberts' views on some of these important social issues, or maybe not. Either way, I'm not going to crucify this guy right out of the gate.
Like I said, it could've been worse. Also, there's an interesting point made by Jared, my fellow Court-watcher over at Stream of Consciousness, with a link to Sentencing Law and Policy. For those of us opposed to the death penalty, Roberts may turn out to be a very good thing.
And one more small point: When President Bush was making his introductory remarks last night, did anyone else notice that he appeared to be trying not to laugh? I kept laughing because I thought he was going to bust out at any moment with the giggles. Just an observation...
posted by Amanda at 7:44 AM
<< Home