Memories seem to be fading quickly nowadays. Hardly anyone can remember what John Roberts was up to while the votes were being counted in 2000. Though it's now being reported that he actually authored the brief that went to the Supreme Court in Bush vs Gore.
Presumably, the primary quality to look for in a judicial nominee is good judgement. So what are we to make of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr's agreeing to have himself trotted out like some sort of show horse for the announcement of his nomination?
What are we to make of his co-operation with the Progress for America crew,whose reputation rests largely on orchestrating smear campaigns against the political opponents of those they support?
And what's the point of having his dad's subordinates at the steel mill speak well of a kid that's made good? We already know from the Justice Clarence Thomas record that a modest background does not necessarily produce compassion or a strong commitment to individual rights.
The news that John Roberts rushed down to Florida to offer some pro bono advice to help George W. Bush get selected to an office the majority of the American people clearly didn't want him in isn't reassuring either. If anything, it shows a level of partisanship that's fundamentally inconsistent with judicial independence. What's to keep us from concluding that John Roberts is just cashing in his chips?
Posted by Hannah at July 30, 2005 10:58 AM