Question: What should the opinions of a nominee’s spouse matter when it comes to confirmation hearings?
Answer: Not a damned thing.
Unless, of course, the issue is abortion:
Judge John G. Roberts has left little hard evidence of his views on abortion in recent years and is widely expected to try to avoid the issue in his coming confirmation hearings.
But there is little mystery about the views of his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, a Roman Catholic lawyer from the Bronx whose pro bono work for Feminists for Life is drawing intense interest in the ideologically charged environment of a Supreme Court confirmation debate.
Some abortion opponents view her activities as a clear signal that the Robertses are committed to their cause; supporters of abortion rights fear the same thing. Others say that drawing a direct line from her activities to how her husband might rule on the Supreme Court – assuming that he not only shares her views, but would also act on them to overturn 32 years of legal precedents – is both politically risky and in bad form.
But, apparently, not bad enough form for the front page of the NY Times. And, in what is most assuredly a Balloon Juice first, let me state that I agree completely with Ted Kennedy:
Kennedy argued that Democrats should not make an issue of the fact that Judge Roberts’ wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, is active in Feminists for Life of America, a group devoted to overturning Roe v. Wade. “I think it ought to be out of bounds. I admire her for that,” the senator said.
Judge Roberts is the nominee. Not Jane Roberts. They aren’t, as some previous politicans and their wives advertised themselves, a package deal.
KC
Amen.
ppGaz
I agree, out of bounds.
Bzzt. Penalty box for NYT.
Doug
The media is desperate for a partisan fight. It’s probably driving them mad that Republicans are mostly, “Seems like a good judge” and Democrats are mostly, “Eh, doesn’t seem too horrible, we’re not likely to do any better. Let’s talk about Rove.”
Steve
I saw a bunch of ads on CNN tonight, talking about what a great guy Judge Roberts is and urging me to call my Senator and tell him to give Judge Roberts a fair up-or-down vote. I was like “Wow, they are way out in front of this one.”
7
I tend to agree. While it makes me leery, I do not relish the first low blow coming from the left. Im sorry, but the cynic in me cant help but chuckle. Some how Im not shocked to know Ted Kennedy likes to keep relationships with wives out of his politics.
You know. Something that got me thinking, What if Roberts is not a distraction from Rove. What if Rove is the distraction for Roberts?
ppGaz
Heh. Not since Nixon have we had a White House so capable of creating that kind of reaction. So it’s good for a chuckle …. but ….
The Rove thing won’t be finished until Fitzgerald says so. The White House has no control over it. If it goes badly, and I am guessing that it might, they could go through all nine Scotus seats and it wouldn’t help them. The Rove thing has the potential to completely blow their cover. Potential, I said, so don’t get your hopes up just yet.
7
Here’s the scenario. WH knows Rove is in deep doo doo and the press is eating him alive, wont let go. So why not fly in someone who thinks men and women dancing together should be outlawed. It’s a win win situation, even if Rove goes down in flames, he only had a few years left in power anyway. But Roberts, hes gonna be on the bench for decades.
ppGaz
Yes, but the Rove thing isn’t really about Rove. It’s about the Bush administration, and their lying and conniving and manipulating. Oh, and a war, ginned up by that lying and conniving and manipulating.
The Rove thing has the potential to expose all of those ugly things that go on inside this White House. Nobody really cares about Rove. I don’t think Bush really even cares about Rove. If he really does, he’s more of a damned fool than I take him for …. and that’s saying something.
SamAm
John, when you’re right, you write (posts like this). Jane Roberts seems if anything an obvious asset to her husband’s nomination, not a detriment, and it would be both rude, uncalled for, and politically disasterous for the Democrats to try and reject him based on her career. I don’t think or hope they will go that direction, but even contemplating such in public sends the absolute wrong message to voters who are liberal but have real qualms about the party’s position on abortion. Those people need to be brought into the Democratic Party, not driven away.
Mike S
Their little boy is screwed. Everytime he brings home a new girlfriend, mom’s bound to break out that video of him dancing during the Presidents speech.
Kimmitt
So if someone actually comes out and SAYS that their wife is a major influence on their lives, that make them fair game, but if they don’t bring it up, we’re required to pretend that they’re not.
I mean, it’s not like she’s got her own opinions as a private citizen. She’s a major activist in the area. It is not at all unreasonable to conclude that he probably has views compatible with being the life partner to a major activist in an area.
Stormy70
The Post snarked on the way his wife and kids were dressed, and within minutes, lefty commenters were trying to figure out if the son was gay because Mrs Roberts made a face. Of course we find out later, the son is 4 years old, and decided to dance during the live address. I agree with the above posters, one should not go after the family. Of course, some of you like to mention the Bush twins in every other post, but that is for the greater lefty good.
p.lukasiak
unfortunately, its not out of bounds at this point.
“Feminists” for Life submitted numerous amicus briefs in opposition to Roe v. Wade, and given that Mrs Roberts is a lawyer, its not unlikely that she wrote/reviewed those briefs before submitting them. The Senate Committee has an obligation to ask if John Roberts participated in any manner in the formulation, writing, or review of those briefs….
John S.
John, does this rule apply to all political figures, or just judges? Seems to me that often the Right seem perfectly content to “package” the Clintons together when it is convenient to go after Bill to make Hillary look bad.
What are the exceptions to the rule? Does billing oneself as a package open a politician’s spouse up for attack?
ppGaz
The original question was in regard to hearings, and the propriety of questions about Roberts’ spouse. The comparison between the noise around politicians, and the boundaries around a judicial confirmation proceeding, is inapt. Unless we want the judiciary to become just another version of the rude circus that is our political theater.
Oh wait …. that’s exactly what the Republican leadership wants …. when it suits their purposes.
In Repubworld, there are no standards or limits to anything. Anything goes, ends justify means, all is fair in love of Gawd and War.
But you see, we have to be better than Republicans. Otherwise the country is lost.
So the correct answer is …. the spouse questions are out of bounds, because that’s the right thing. Not the Republican thing, the right thing.
Does anyone here think that if this were a liberal appointee with an activist liberal lawyer wife, we wouldn’t be hearing screams about it from the Nutosphere on the right? Of course we would.
But again, we are better than the bottomless pit of Republican standards. Otherwise, the country is finished.
John S.
I agree with you 100%. I didn’t mean to push a notion of moral relativism, but rather meant to point out the hypocrisy of the double standard.
Liberals need to embrace the proper set of values, not the lowered standard set by the GOP.
ppGaz
Gotcha.
Of course, to suggest that anything could be relative to the moral vacuum that is the Republican party would have to be taken as humor. Behold their world, a world without shame, without accountability, without even a very good pretense of respecting the “values” they are always talking about.
I can explain their values in five words: We won, get over it.
Jeff Maier
I agree it should be definitely off limits. The notion of using a spouse’s employment or activities to attack or undermine a public figure is so illegitimate that it’s almost — Republican.
The Den Mother
“[Ted] Kennedy argued that Democrats should not make an issue of the fact that Judge Roberts’ wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, is active in Feminists for Life of America, a group devoted to overturning Roe v. Wade. “I think it ought to be out of bounds. I admire her for that,” the senator said.”
Kennedy may be saying this because his sister, Eunice, has given money to Feminists for Life.
Bernard Yomtov
I agree.
In fact, I would like to see Bush make a strong statement that disagreeing with an individual does not make the spouse “fair game,” and that he would not tolerate it from anyone in his Administration.
Sojourner
Too late for that!!