Musings About Judge John Roberts
President Bush’s nomination of Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court is an interesting move. In one fell swoop, he spawned a hellish response to an accomplished lawyer who has argued an unbelievable 39 times! before the U.S. Supreme Court. According to W.:
[Judge Roberts] has profound respect for the rule of law and for the liberties guaranteed to every citizen. He will strictly apply the Constitution in laws, not legislate from the bench.
But will Roberts follow his presidential pronouncement? That is the million-dollar question. Roberts has a limited paper trail and has argued on behalf of both liberal and conservative clients. Is it true that Roberts is a constitutionalist and will interpret the laws according to the statutory text and not insert his personal policy preferences as law? Is Roberts a Scalia/Thomas jurist or will he transmogrify into a Souter or another O’Connor?
Bush’s selection of Roberts is encouraging in that he choose who he deemed most qualified without regard to race, ethnicity, or gender. His selection of a white male has infuriated some on the left, including Senator Ken Salazar, Democrat from Colorado. Salazar authored a tasteless letter to President Bush in which he expressed disappointment that Bush choose a man instead of a woman. Patronizing Bush’s relationship with his daughters, Salazar concluded his pitiful tripe:
You and I both have two daughters. The profound message we should be giving to them is that their gender creates no limitations for them to live up to their God-given potential. Yet, I fear that with the loss of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor from the United States Supreme Court, we are sending the opposite message.
Salazar’s spittle is beyond the pale. The Constitution does not require a certain number of women, men, or ethnicities dressed in black robes in order to properly hear and decide a case. Salazar’s inference that Bush is telling women there are limitations to their God-given potential is sexist and ignorant. Maybe the esteemed Senator Salazar should resign his office and give it to a woman so he can feel better about himself. That’s the real reason for his comments. Salazar wants the admiration of the feminst groups who fill the ranks of the Democratic party and to feel good that he is continuing the “battle for equality.”
I do have my reservations on the Roberts pick. What are his views on the importance of traditional marriage? Does he believe the First Amendment commands a separation of church and state? I agree with Ann Coulter: selecting a Supreme Court nominee should not be a game of Russian roulette. Bush should have picked an obvious and fiery conservative, one who is unabashedly proud of his conservatism and verifably reliable.
Unfortunately, at this point the Roberts nomination leaves more questions than answers. It is early. Hopefully, the conservatives on the judiciary committee will push Roberts to divulge more of his judicial philosophy–and that philosophy will not make conservatives want to throw up.
**Update #1**
Americans United for Separation of Church and State’s outcry on Judge Roberts’s nomination makes me happy. If Roberts believes in recognizing our Nation’s religous heritage as AU claim, then Roberts will be a welcome addition to Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Kennedy–Justices who properly understand what the religion clauses mean.