Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Roberts II

My reaction to the Roberts nomination was initially one of jubilee. That feeling has been waning for some time. It doesn't help when Joseph Farah compares him to Stephen Breyer. While not a regular reader of Mr. Farah, he writes for WorldNetDaily, home of some of my favorite commentators. Rather than act as a mouthpiece for Bush--like Rush and Hannity often do--WND seems more principled than, say, FoxNews.

John Roberts still has most conservatives buffaloed.

They just can't believe George W. Bush would betray them so boldly.

But he has.

Even I, the ultimate skeptic, am just beginning to fathom the extent of the shell game that has been played on conservatives – most of whom are actively working on behalf of the confirmation of a new chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court who will make Ruth Bader Ginsberg look like a moderate.

Stephen Breyer. That's who Roberts most resembles, according to his friend.

The article is mostly taken from one source, so it is best to take Farah's piece with a grain of salt. That being said, if Roberts truly is a moderate or liberal, that would explain the lack of outrage over his appointment. Farah's piece alone isn't enough to convince me completely. It is Roberts himself who is doing his best to do that.

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts jousted with Democratic senators Tuesday at his confirmation hearing to be chief justice, dodging their attempts to pin down his opinions on abortion, voting rights and other legal issues.

Roberts said he felt the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was "settled as a precedent" and that the Constitution provides a right to privacy.

I can't imagine those words coming from Thomas or Scalia. I was hoping for more of a "there is no carte blanche right to privacy" approach. Also, Roe v. Wade is a case of judicial activism. Hiding behind precedent is cowardly. Why don't we just go back to the precedence of Plessy v. Ferguson while we're at it? Why can't Roberts come out and admit what conservatives--and honest liberals--know to be true?

To an extent, I'm willing to let Roberts' cowardice slide. After all, with a slim majority made up of McCain like moderates and a group of Democrats who realize what is at stake, it may be best to play it cool. If, however, Roberts does come down on the pro-choice side of any decision, the conservatives may have finally had enough.

The fringe left--NARAL and People for the American Way for instance--are displeased that Roberts won't tie himself down to a stance on the abortion issue. The liberals in the Senate seems slightly ticked that Roberts won't do something stupid that they can use for ammo against Bush. I've never paid attention to a Supreme Court nomination, but things appear to be going well enough, at least for Roberts.

Whether or not they are good for conservatives, and by extension the republic, remains to be seen. Bush's legacy, and the future of the Republican Party, hang in the balance.

No comments: