President Bush’s swift decision to upgrade Judge John Roberts’ nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court from that an associate justice to the chief justice was politically expedient. For all the left wing’s attempts to tar Roberts in recent weeks, he still looks like a bulletproof candidate — with the conservative pedigree to cut it with the right and the weighty resume to satisfy the middle and earn the American Bar Association’s highest review. So his confirmation seems assured, and the real fight likely has been deferred to the bench’s second opening. And as the president said Monday, "It is in the interest of the court and the country to have a chief justice on the bench on the first full day of the fall term." (It also would keep liberal Justice John Paul Stevens from filling the chief’s seat, even temporarily.)
In the rush to confirm Roberts, though, neither the Senate nor the public should neglect the long-lasting implications of this new development. Here’s one: With Roberts a tender 50, this means he could be in charge of the court for two to three decades. Is he ready? And what about those Americans who are more than ready to see someone other than a white male lead the nation’s highest court?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Rage on Let immigrants run
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- george on Open thread 11/23
- sursum on Let immigrants run
- littlejohn on Health care reform would save state money
- littlejohn on Health care reform would save state money
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
10 Comments
Why not put the senior associate justice as chief justice? Oh, never mind, that would put a balanced center in the Supreme Court. Silly me.
Bush won the election. One of the reasons many voted for Bush was to have someone sane making these Supreme Court nominations. Why not let the people’s choice make the nominations? Silly me.
Hank
I see no reason for the Left to allow a political operative and ideologue such as Roberts to serve as Chief Justice and head of the Federal Jusiciary.
Time for the filibuster.
Hank’s post says it all-why there should be indepth discussions about Roberts. It became apparent last week about the qualifacations of some Bush appointments, like the head of FEMA being a horse show director. Duh?It is enough to make you wonder who else is underqualified.
NOONE appears to be questioning Robert’s qualifications. Those that do probably aren’t qualified to do so. I’m certainly not… maybe that’s why Justices aren’t elected by the general public!
I, for one, question his qualifications. A mere two years on the Federal Bench and now he’s going to head the entire Federal Judiciary?
I would prefer someone who actually has some experience deciding cases at the local and state level, rather than decades of experience acting as a political operative for the powerful.
I just love how the right tries to squelch decent by pre-emptivly declaring Robberts “bullet proof.” Then lock out the left from the mediea and wonder where the decenters are.
The man was Ragan’s leagel adviser during Iran Contra. Did Roberts tell Ronny it was okay to brake the law? Who knows, the White House is sitting on those records saying Congress dosn’t have a right to see them under “aterny-cliant privlege”
If he is so bullet proof, what are they hidding?
My first problem with Roberts is bsbush wants him. The depths of corporate corruption and toadyism to certain strident idealogues evidenced by mr. bush and his administration are only beginning to be known.
bush has done a great deal of damage already and it’s only been five years with three more years of misery and abject failure that he has yet to inflict. I do not think he should be allowed a pass to co-opt and corrupt the judicial process for what may be decades.
It is time for the filibuster. And if the corrupt Republicans try to circumvent this, then Democrats must shut the Senate down.
Wow… paranoia abounds on this blog.It will be interesting to see how wild it gets when GW makes his “other” nomination. It could well be someone who is actually controversial. Hope so, personally I think Roberts isn’t tough enough on abortion. I would like to see Tiller and the late-termers outa here!!
Kansassam, just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get me.
For the record, I hope he DOES nominate Gonzalez: it would be great to get him under oath to see what he knows about all SORTS of things.
Plus, it’ll piss off Laura Bush, who wants to see a woman on the court. W better be careful: as Laura’s former boyfriend could attest–if he were still alive–it’s best not to get on her bad side.