I've been following the news about Bush's nomination of John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court, and what strikes me more than anything else is how devoid this nomination is of scandal or "scorched-Earth" political warfare.
I don't think anyone expected that—and to a degree, it's too early to say anything is certain—but this might turn out to be a smooth process. I was ready for the now-typical warfare. Within hours of the announcement I got an e-mail (don't remember if it was from MoveOn.org or elsewhere) that claimed that John G. Roberts would stand for a reversal on Row vs Wade and feverishly support strip-mining every nature preserve. Really it was an ugly piece, and I'm a little ashamed of those militant leftists who are as caught-up in hateful partisan warfare as their Republican counterparts.
First of all, the "evidence" that was being provided was based on cases Roberts argued as a litigator. Having spent my time in High School debate, I know that solely because you argue a side, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are personally invested in that side. The point to litigation (the part of law that involves two lawyers and a judge) is the idea that if two really smart people argue two opposite sides of an issue and an equally smart third party listens to the arguments, something approximate to truth or wisdom will result—not every time, but under the law of averages.
What I find interesting has been the recent collection of articles written by lawyers, legal analysts, and academic law professors. I, myself, have a fascination with Constitutional Law. (Anyone interested can find a few books on the subject in my Amazon wish-list, in case you're looking for a Christmas present for me!) What's interesting about justices Thomas or Scalia is not their position on any single issue, but their opinions on how the application of the entire Constitution should be applied. (And frankly, I find both mens' opinions frightening.)
John G. Roberts, as described by people interested more in law than politics, seems like a careful and thoughtful person, devoid of any grand plans to use the Supreme Court as a vehicle to enforce any interest-groups' agendas. His concern seems to be how the judicial branch of the country evolves and interacts with the rest of the country and the changing times.
And in that I'm really shocked, because I would never expect that from the Bush Administration. (Maybe that means there's gotta be some sort of a catch.) This seems to be the first thoughtful, sober act to come out of the White House yet. I really hope that I'm not mistaken.
Posted by Murray Todd Williams at July 21, 2005 11:48 AM