Here Come The Judge!

John Roberts is on his way to being confirmed to the US Supreme Court today and will serve as its next Chief Justice. Hooray. I can't wait. Do you suppose that he’ll face resentment from other Associate Justices, all of whom were passed over for promotion? For the love of God, Stevens has been an Associate Justice for 30 years! Where’s the love? Oh well, I guess it could have been Scalia.

Now I would rather eat a popsicle covered with fire ants than see this asshole confirmed to the Supreme Court -- let alone Chief Justice. I don’t have any issues with Roberts’ legal qualifications. God knows he’s a far better attorney than me (of course that’s like winning the “Tallest Midget” contest).

The Washington Post -- which supports Roberts’ confirmation -- praised him by stating:

“Judge Roberts represents the best nominee liberals can reasonably expect from a conservative president who promised to appoint judges who shared his philosophy. Before his nomination, we suggested several criteria that Mr. Bush should adopt to garner broad bipartisan support: professional qualifications of the highest caliber, a modest conception of the judicial function, a strong belief in the stability of precedent, adherence to judicial philosophy, even where the results are not politically comfortable, and an appreciation that fidelity to the text of the Constitution need not mean cramped interpretations of language that was written for a changing society. Judge Roberts possesses the personal qualities we hoped for and testified impressively as to his belief in the judicial values. While he almost certainly won't surprise America with generally liberal rulings, he appears almost as unlikely to willfully use the law to advance his conservative politics.”

That sounds like wishful thinking to me and misses the point of the Roberts confirmation process. The issue has to do with his views and how he would respond if he were faced with certain legal issues. I think that the NY Times got it correctly when it stated:

“It has been difficult for senators to extricate his views. During his brief term as a judge, he has written few notable opinions. The White House has refused to release the memorandums he wrote in the solicitor general's office, which could have been revealing. Memos from earlier in his career raise red flags on issues like civil rights, women's rights and the right to privacy - which he dismissed, at one point, as the "so-called 'right to privacy.' " When confronted with this record, he often gave the impression of having moderated his views, but stopped well short. Over days of testimony, he dodged and weaved around many other critical legal issues. On abortion, church-state separation, gay rights and the right of illegal immigrants' children to attend public school - all currently recognized by the court - he asks to be accepted on faith.”

Accept on faith? Are you kidding me? The only thing I accept on faith is the fact that there will hot coffee at Peet’s when I go there in order to caffeinate after my ridiculously early 8:30 staff call. But that’s about it. Roberts represents a huge unknown risk, especially since he’s likely to serve 30+ years on the court. I recall that we did this same song and dance with Clarence Thomas when he was confirmed, where he refused to state a position on Roe v. Wade and trumped the confirmation hearings by throwing out the race card by referencing his high tech “lynching.” In fact, the only think I know about Roberts is that he looks like a right-wing freak and, evidently, he’s never sexually harassed Anita Hill. Big deal, neither have I.