Sometimes, things come right down to a hunch...
As I watched President Bush introduce John Roberts last night I was really struck by how emotional the man was, and it spoke volumes to me.
John G. Roberts exudes humility. Last night I saw a man humbled by the honor which was just given to him, without a hint of a sense of entitlement.
When he spoke of the lump in his throat that he got every time he climbed the marble steps that led into the Supreme Court Building, it was genuine, and people can't fake that.
That tells me that this is a man with a respect for our system of government, a profound love and respect for the law, an appreciation for history and his place in it.
I believe Roberts is a man who will always place fidelity to our Constitution and a real sense of justice before all considerations, even his historical legacy. How often do you see that in any Justice on the US Supreme Court? He's the real deal.
It is rare that we see a man of this disposition in Washington, and I think he's an excellent choice for these reasons.
I don't have anything concrete, and I could always turn out to be wrong, but I just have a deep calm in my heart and absolutely no worries in my head that when he makes decisions they are going to be based soundly on constitutional principles with the most careful of considerations and reasoning behind them.
Will I always agree with his decisions? I find that highly unlikely, but I have absolutely no doubt that when read I will respect how he came to his decisions and feel assured of the sincerity of his view of the constitutionality in how the law was applied.
I wish I could give you something more definite, but I can't at this time. Only history will prove me right or wrong, but I can't help but feel that this is a man worthy of my respect and trust.
Do you guys have any thoughts?
-The Oklahoma Hippy
I agree. I think some of the far right may have more reservations about this nomoniee than liberals.
ReplyDeleteI think it's also important to note that the briefs that he wrote as a lawyer may not reflect his actual beliefs. As nice as it would be to only ever argue the side with which you agree, as an attorney, you're sometimes forced to advocate a position contrary to your own.
ReplyDeleteI know this from first hand experience in the internship my last semester of law school (this past Spring). I was working on a brief, and honestly I did not agree with the argument we were making. But lawyers have a duty to advocate zealously for their clients, and you can't choose who will walk in the door and retain your services. If I had an extreme moral objection to something, I would refuse the case. But you can't stay afloat financially picking and choosing which clients you like and which you don't.
Now this isn't to say that he's a liberal in conservative clothing. It's just that many in the liberal blog world are pointing to the briefs he wrote while a private attorney as evidence of his views. We should be careful doing this, because of the nature of the legal profession.
I will reserve judgment at least until the confirmation hearing. Unless he's just absolute evil personified, I think an expedient confirmation can only be good for both sides.
-The Hippy's Wife :)
A few points:
ReplyDelete1) If he looks like a reasonable, sane, likable guy to us, he's looking the same to middle America. Arguing against reasonable-sane-likable does not help imagewise with swing voters we desperately need to win over.
2) In the end, he's going to get confirmed anyway. I don't think this is an issue.
3) I, personally, would rather put every ounce of energy and every dollar into retaking the House in 2006. We must regain some footing in this government ASAP.
4) Sadly, we will undoubtedly lose Rehnquist or Stevens, or maybe both, before 2008, and Bush will have another nominee. That one will be worse, I am very sure, and we will be stronger then if we have not appeared obstructionist on Roberts or wasted money and resources on a fight now over Roberts that we will lose anyway.
I say use the confirmation process to be sure to clearly enunciate our concerns and positions, then confirm the guy and move on.
Let's choose our battles wisely.
"[A] poster on the Angry Left Daily Kos site was urging opposition 'research' on Judge John Roberts's 4-year-old son, Jack. If the Drudge Report is right, a major newspaper is heeding that call: 'The New York Times is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts.... The Times has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts' two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals. Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants. Both children were adopted from Latin America. A Times insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper's 'standard background check.' And it's very important to investigate every aspect of a prospective Supreme Court justice's life. After all, he may threaten the right to privacy!" --James Taranto
ReplyDelete