I do very much like the sound of that. This is a great nomination -- one that is sure to cause much wailing and gnashing of teeth in large part because there is virtually no way to stall confirmation. Roberts is a lawyer's lawyer and, for a change, truly is the best candidate for the job. Further, there is little chance that this nominee is another Kennedy in Bork's clothing; Roberts is, as Ken Starr atests, the real deal. In the end, the Court will shortly become much more representative of the country. Funny that it took the nomination of a white male . . . (and here's a tip of the hat to POTUS for having the balls to nominate a white male -- despite the stated expectations of his wife(!))
I'm very much looking forward to the fools that those on the left will assuredly be making of themselves over the coming months. As the folks at Polipundit
is fond of saying, elections do matter (and, as fate would have it, they say so in the post linked below). Background on Roberts here
(SCOTUSBlog) and here
(AP). Michelle weighs in here
. The puppy-blending Instapundit's instathoughts over here
. Some general discussion at the Conspiracy
. Poli and crew also can't wait for the wailing
: NARAL has already posted a form letter
by which you can let your Senator know that:
If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. As Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush, he argued to the Supreme Court that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled…."
Snooze. In any event, the language NARAL quotes as evidence of Roberts's views on abortion are drawn from a brief he signed (as the sixth lawyer) while working in the Solicitor General's office. In other words, he was stating the administration's position, not his own (but here's hoping!). But then why should anyone expect a measure intellectual honesty from NARAL.AP
attributes the following quote to Roberts, which, I suppose came up in either the 1991 or the 2001 confirmation process:
Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.
Of course, unlike seats on the D.C. Circuit, seats on the SCOTUS are not necessarily restricted to applying "fully and faithfully" SCOTUS precedent . . .
Schumer's comments (as summarized by Michelle Malkin
) are, in large measure, contemptible. But so is Schumer, so no surprise here:
There is no question that Judge Roberts has outstanding legal credentials. [But] only 2 years on the D.C. Circuit court...many of his personal views "unknown." It is his obligation during the nomination process to know those views. The burden is on the nominee to prove that he is worthy. I voted against him [ed -- for the D.C. Circuit] because he did not answer questions openly.
Why, one is tempted to ask, are a Justice's "personal views" relevant? Answer: They're not, unless one naturally expects a judge to decide cases based on personal views instead of legal requirements. I guess we know where Schumer is on that issue . . .FYI
: Hewitt is on until midnight eastern tonight talking about the nomination. Listen live by hitting the "listen live" button at KSKY
: Here's an AP roundup
of immediate reaction.