Last night Chairman Bush announced his nomination of a Supreme Court Justice to replace Sandra Day O’Connor. John Roberts is an Appeals court judge in the D.C. district. The radio shows, news, and blogs are buzzing about this guy. Is he a good pick? Is he another Leftist in Conservative clothing.
When O’Connor announced her retirement, I told my wife my prediction about her replacement. I predicted that Chairman Bush would nominate someone who is a strict constructionist, in the vein of Antonin Scalia. That nominee would be shredded by Leftists in the confirmation process and spit out. Then, Bush would pick someone else who is more “moderate” and could survive confirmation. This person would end up being another false conservative and a leftist. The next justice would do nothing to end the slaughter of innocents that has gone on since the Roe v. Wade decision. All the while, Bush would have played the political game, saying that he tried, he put his nominee up, and the Democrats blocked him/her.
That may very well be what he’s doing.
On the other hand, there seems to be almost no record for the public to scrutinize in regards to John Roberts. There is a quote floating around that Roe should be overturned, but not much else. That quote was made some time ago, and from what I’ve seen, it was made on behalf of his client, the United States of America. He is also quoted as distancing himself from the same quote. Bush could very well be using the lack of a record as a cover to get a nominee through who he can argue is conservative, despite reality.
Last election, Bush worked hard to get Arlen Specter re-elected. He helped to ruin the candidacy of Specter’s more conservative opponent in the primaries. As a result, and according to plan, Specter became the chair of the Judiciary Committee. Specter has a record of opposing the most conservative nominees to judicial positions. On November 4, 2004, I wrote about Specter warning Bush not to appoint Pro-Life candidates to the court.
It remains to be seen who this man is. Maybe Bush is living up to his promise to put a strict constructionist on the court. I will remain skeptical until the process is over and the court decisions start coming down.
I’m with you on this one. I’m a skeptic too. Roberts lack of record and his personal knowledge of the SCOTUS is troubling to me though, for all the bad reasons. If a president wanted to nominate someone who is really a strict constructionist, he’d/she’d have a record and everyone would know where he/she stood. I’ve tried looking for something, ANYTHING, about the man to give me an indication and found nothing. If Bush was being honest and forthright about his pick, his nominee would have something, ANYTHING, of a record. Essentially, IMHO, this reeks.
On the one hand Roberts denounces Roe v. Wade, but on the other he has said
that it is the “law of the land” even though it is a court decision, not
Constitutionally-authorized legislation according to Article I Section I.
A strict constructionist would not say that.
Other actions by President Bush have indicated a liberal interpretation of
the Constitution, so one of 3 options are possible:
President Bush has a twisted definition of a strict constructionist,
he was lying about his intentions,
or he knows that Roberts is really solid in his loyalty to original intent
of the Constitution itself.
I pray that the last option is true, although I doubt it. Hopefully this
will become clear in the confirmation hearings.