Judge Roberts gets a big thumbs up from Jeff Rosen this morning:
Here is what liberals and conservatives can agree on about John Roberts, President Bush’s first Supreme Court nominee: He is perhaps the most impressive Supreme Court advocate of his generation, extremely intelligent, thoughtful and able – a lawyer’s lawyer. In a reasonable world, that should be enough to assure his confirmation with bipartisan enthusiasm. Unfortunately, Washington politics is anything but reasonable.
Judge Roberts takes pride in representing both sides of the political spectrum. He delighted environmental groups by convincing the Supreme Court that a freeze on development in an unspoiled part of Lake Tahoe didn’t violate the private property rights of the affected landowners. He has argued for and against the constitutionality of affirmative action. For Mr. Roberts, the ability to “argue a case round or argue it flat,” as the lawyers say, is a point of pride.
David Brooks, gushing like a teenage schoolgirl, offers up this sloppy wet kiss:
Roberts nomination, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee with the depth and breadth and height my soul can reach. I love thee freely, as men strive for right. I love thee because this is the way government is supposed to work. President Bush consulted widely, moved beyond the tokenism of identity politics and selected a nominee based on substance, brains, careful judgment and good character.
I love thee because John G. Roberts is the face of today’s governing conservatism.
The Washington Post has this John Yoo guest piece:
Democrats should recognize an olive branch when they see it.
By choosing John G. Roberts to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court, President Bush came as close as possible to finding a non-ideological, consensus nominee who can also lay claim to being a Republican.
Manuel Miranda in the Opinion Journal yesterday:
Last night George Bush kept his campaign promise that he would name a justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. And I for one am ashamed that I ever doubted him. I should have understood the president better. In John Roberts, the president got what he wanted, and we conservatives did too…
But for many the day only began anew after the president’s announcement. The telephone companies made a profit last night on conference calls to “introduce” John Roberts to the conservative base. Questions were blunt: “Tell me if this guy is one of us,” demanded one skeptic. “Is he solid?” asked another. But it was not a hard sell. Conservatives around the country went to sleep happy.
All in all, Mr. Bush seems to have made a shrewd choice, one that moves the Court back toward the center while denying opponents easy attack lines. The list of the three Democrats who voted against Mr. Roberts in committee for the appeals court–Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin and Chuck Schumer–tells us who is really in the judicial “mainstream.”
We’ll still get a noisy battle, because the MoveOn.org crowd can’t help themselves, but unless they can dig up some mud we aren’t now aware of, the left is about to discover that losing Presidential elections has judicial consequences.
Now, can someone at the FEC explain to me again why it is that I need to be regulated, but these guys have full
free protection? I’ll leave you with the deep thoughts of Paul McLeary, after which, you can try to explain this all to me:
What’s more, campaign finance laws are there for a reason, and it’s a little presumptuous of bloggers to hold themselves above the system. Many partisan bloggers are little more than political activists, and as activists they raise funds for their own pet political causes, something reporters don’t — and can’t — do. In this, they should be included under campaign finance laws.
In the end, it’s a complicated issue, and both sides have salient points. Here’s hoping that the bloggers, the court system and the FEC can arrive at some middle ground where the blogosphere remains a free and open forum for political talk, while limitations on campaign financing are also upheld.
Maybe McLeary can explain this petition from NewsMax and how that is journalism, and not political activism:
NewsMax.com, one of America’s leading online news services, is enabling its readers to petition their US Senators for the appointment of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
NewsMax will provide your petition to the Senators of your state in digital and print form during the confirmation process.
Already leading Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin have condemned the nomination and say they will launch an all out effort to stop the appointment of Judge Roberts.
During this critical period, make sure your voice is heard!
I am sure John McCain and Russ Feingold, with their lackeys at the FEC, can make this all crystal clear.
But an opinion that the 50-year-old judge joined just last week in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld should be seriously troubling to anyone who values civil liberties. As a member of a three-judge panel on the D.C. federal court of appeals, Roberts signed on to a blank-check grant of power to the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists without basic due-process protections. Link Here
Did you seriously just quote Manuel Miranda? You might as well quote Aldrich Ames about identity theft.
Since you quoted from a John Yoo opinion column…
John Yoo is on the PBS News Hour frequently. Occasionally he slips up and reveals a very strong totalitarian streak. It bothers me. His support of Roberts will actually cause me to be a bit more suspicious of the nomination.
BTW, I am not a liberal.
Kennedy, Schumer and Durbin would have complained about ANY Bush nominee that wasn’t an outright leftist. If Bush had nominated Kennedy, Schumer and Durbin might have still whined.
John Yoo writing opinion pieces about jurisprudence in the WP; tomorrow, OJ on the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization.
Apparently, we really don’t have any shame.
Yes Rocky, no appontee should ever be questioned and their allegiances shouldn’t be uncovered during the process because, well, that would be whining and complaining.
Stop focusing so much on 3 Democratic senators, you’re becoming obsessed. Your comment belongs more on a freeper site than here.
It is a joke. The FEC wants to regulate blogs, but the NYTimes, the Post, the Washington Times, Fox News, etc. all go unregulated though they participate in politics all the time. Just read Somerby , you’ll see his hobby-horse example, but an example nonetheless.
I had no idea David Brooks was ABSOLUTELY FLAMING!!
Binkyboy- Why don’t you point out where I said the nominee should get carte blanche acceptance with no questioning? I never said that. My point was that those three Senators would oppose ANYONE that Bush nominated, even if they knew nothing about him. Questioning the nominee is a natural part of the confirmation process. I expect that. These three coming out against Roberts BEFORE the questioning is no suprise either.
“I had no idea David Brooks was ABSOLUTELY FLAMING!!”
I second that opinion. I couldn’t believe how much it seemed like a gay love letter to Roberts. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I agree up to the point you said, ‘even if they knew nothing about him’. Since they are idealogically opposed they most likely would have a problem with a Bush appointee but they would definately check him out before speaking.
S you think people should hold their opinions until after he’s questioned yet the right doesn’t think he should be questioned. I think we’re in a bit of a pickle here.
I didn’t have much time for reading today. I really thought you were doing one of those “shorter Brooks” parodies. Jumping Jesus on a trampoline!
Who, in the name of reason, takes this guy seriously — right, left, or Martian?