Everyone will by now have seen the headlines proclaiming that Bush Chooses Roberts for Court, so I won't waste time acting like I'm telling you anything new. WaPo also has this nice little bio piece which gives you some background on the man who will most likely take over for O'Connor.

Most of the original press surrounding the nomination made a point to mention Roberts' statement that Roe v. Wade was "wrongly decided and should be overruled", which he defends by pointing out that it was a statement made as lawyer for the first Bush administration. Apparently, he is known making the case that lawyers should not be held to believe the cases they make, and John Yoo at UC Berkeley seems to agree that he's not gunning for Roe, noting that

"he represents the Washington establishment. These Washington establishment people are not revolutionaries, and they're not out to shake up constitutional law. They might make course corrections, but they're not trying to sail the boat to a different port."

So why Roberts? The Post pulls a quote from his former boss (as deputy counsel in the Reagan administration) Fred Fielding saying "he's generally conservative on presidential powers," a fact which could explain him as a pick if true. This anecdote is also somewhat telling:

In the aftermath of the disputed 2000 presidential election, Roberts played a key, if quiet, role in the Florida recount. Although his name did not appear on the briefs, three sources who were personally aware of Roberts's role said he gave Gov. Jeb Bush (R) critical advice on how the Florida Legislature could constitutionally name George W. Bush the winner at a time when Republicans feared that if the recount were to continue the courts might force a different choice.

But the overall sense of the Post sketch is that he's a conservative able to voice his views "in moderate tones", which makes sense in a way. When it seemed Bush was going to nominate a woman, people were speculating that it was a strategic move to ease the confirmation process. This could easily be a means to the same end. For example, Harry Reid has already taken a decisively ballsy stance:

"The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry," Reid said in a statement. "The Senate must review Judge Roberts's record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness."

Yet I don't see this leading to much more than a rigorous hearing by the Judicial Committee, and a less-than-unanimous vote. And from what initial news reports have drudged up, that's pretty reasonable - there are no obvious reasons why he shouldn't be confirmed.

Of course, Lindsay Beyerstein might have at least one reason.

Post a comment