Jury still out on Supreme Court Nominee

I said weeks ago that we were going to be told how to feel about Herr President's most important nomination, John Roberts, but I must admit, I still an unsure where most people stand. The initial uproarus approval has toned down somewhat amongst the Republicans, and no one in the Democrats seem to know what to make of the man. It may be his sparse record to this point, it may also be the man is really good at hiding what he is really thinking. For my own part I try to glean from various articles and quotes where he is going to stand on certain important issues, and every time I think I know something, something else comes up. Who is this guy and what game is he playing? As far as I can tell, he may not be qualified to be on the supreme court but he also appears to be neither the Devil Incarnate that liberals fear nor the Conquering Hero that conservatives want. From here, he appears to be someone who may in fact do just fine in the position.

I don't want to argue whether or not Roberts is qualified. He clearly isn't. The Supreme Court is an appointment someone reaches after years of services and experience in lower courts. It is the pinnacle of a lifetimes work, not something given to you after 18 months at the district level. I don't want to argue whether or not Roberts is a good lawyer. He clearly is. Everyone keeps referring to him as brilliant and many important people and organizations have depended on his services and advice. Every private meeting Roberts has taken has ended with the Senator in question being convinced of his abilities as a lawyer.

I generally think that a president has the right to appoint whoever he wants. It's part of the job. The senate also has the right to interrogate this person and to fillibuster if they have to, that's their job. I will be interested to see what comes out of the approval hearings, but we will never really know how Roberts will adjudicate until he is there on the bench. I also know this about lawyers in private practice (I happen to be married to a very cute one :) - they often take on cases and clients that they don't agree with, and argue positions they don't fully beleive. IT'S WHAT THEY ARE PAID TO DO. Furtherfore, if the president of the United States of America askes you to write a memo arguing a certain position froma certain side, you do it. THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE PAID TO DO.

It has recently come out that the supposedly arch-conservative argued very non-conservative sides of several issues: representing homeless men and women who had lost their government benefits because of city budget cuts, advocating environmental protections for Lake Tahoe, Glacier Bay and the Grand Canyon, and spending 25 hours assisting a convicted murderer with a death penalty appeal. He even helped gay rights activists win a landmark Supreme Court anti-discrimination case. Does that make me feel better about him? Of course. Does it worry the conservatives? Maybe. Do we really know how he stands on those issues? No, although his gay rights work was pro-bono, which you can always turn down. Again, even if he's not completely balanced, he looks like he is able to see it from the other side, which is important, and something a few of our current supreme court judges can't do.

So here you have it, I say put him on. I don't think Herr President has any better up his sleeve and Roberts at least looks capable of forming his own opinions.