Thursday, July 21, 2005

Who Is This Guy?

Why, he's John G. Roberts, Jr., and isn't he handsome? Isn't his family charming? Isn't his history confounding? Isn't he a little--I dunno-- inexperienced to be on the Nations' Highest court? Let's review his record on important cases:

Want to review it again?

The guy's had two years of judicial experience. Two years. My daughter's been handing down lunch orders longer than he's been handing down judgements, and she's seven.

So why him?

I keep thinking back to Clarence Thomas, and reading an op-ed piece about him when he was nominated to replace Thurgood Marshall. I wish I could remember who it was so I could give credit. He or she said: Thomas was certainly not the most qualified judge out there. He wasn't even the most qualified black judge. He was merely the most qualified black judge who fit a certain political viewpoint. Daddy Bush named him because he felt he needed an African-American, which left him precious few choices.

Baby Bush has shown that he's his own man, by picking a man to fill the seat vacated by a woman. So, because he was not following a 'gender-specific' nomination process, he could have picked anyone.

So, again, why him?

By all accounts, he's a good judge, but there are other good, judges out there. There are other good conservative judges out there, with much more experience.

And that's the problem. They have experience. They have backgrounds. They have handed down judgements. There are questions that can be asked about their decisions. They have a paper trail.

This guy's got nothing.

And that's why him. He's invisible. All that can be asked of him are hypotheticals, because there's little go to on. Just a likeable, smart guy.

So here's hoping that he is a smart guy. Here's hoping that he keeps his own counsel, and ajudicates with his head and his heart, without political loyalties. I know that dubya wants a man in the mold of Thomas. I hope he gets one in the mold of Souter.



Blogger Jessica said...

Though it's not as if he's any stranger to the Supreme Court. He's just more familiar with the lawyer-side of things. Wait a minute, am I defending him?

7:23 AM, July 22, 2005  
Blogger Balloon Pirate said...

Sounds like it. And that's the point. His argument against Roe v. Wade, for example, in one of his cases, could be couched as a lawyer merely arguing the best case for his client.

That's fine.

The question then becomes: What IS his viewpoint on Roe? What is his opinion on anything? How do you judge a judge on anything other than how he judges?

One other thing:

My sister-in-law is a lawyer. She's a very good lawyer. An excellent lawyer, in fact. One time I suggested she become a judge. "I'd make a lousy judge," she said.

Just because you're good at one aspect of an operation doesn't mean you're good in another.


9:04 AM, July 22, 2005  
Blogger mal said...

Pirate, we can hope that this man is like many others who have risen to the court and will surprise those who appointed him by following his own mind. Warren was one, O'Connor another. All we can hope for is intellectual honesty in the law and not moral ideology

The fact he is an unknown I believe increases the chances

11:01 AM, July 22, 2005  
Blogger Jerry said...

We can hope he wears the pants in the family...his wife doesn't sound to be very sympathetic to Roe V Wade.

4:33 PM, July 22, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

Did you know that he was an advisor to Jeb Bush during the Florida 2000 Election scandal?

Google it!

9:55 PM, July 22, 2005  
Blogger Philip Morton said...

Great post, BP. This guy has the smell of party line politics over him. More importantly - wasn't Bush saying he wanted this to move quickly and have a name by "October"? That was two weeks ago - before RoveGate broke. Then last week there were 1250 articles on Rove in as many different newspapers. Then suddenly Teflon Rob is droppined into the Supreme Court Catapult release device. And the media mostly falls silent on Rove's perjury and breaking of natioanl security. BP said the rest the best, I rest his case.

12:24 AM, July 23, 2005  
Blogger Anonymous Law Student said...

Here's hoping the dems will filibuster!

7:48 PM, July 23, 2005  
Blogger Subcomandante Bob said...

John Roberts and I once worked for McDonald's as characters.

He was the Hamburglar, and I was one of those stupid packs of fries.

I hated him for getting a real role, while I was a pile of greased-up spuds.


All right, I just made all that up. You got me.

8:55 PM, July 23, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home