Barrister Roberts It has taken me long enough to do it, but I've gotten around to formulating an impression of President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts. It's a tough call, and that alone has given rise to talk of Bush suddenly being a political genius. Roberts has been described as the "stealth candidate", a conservative with hidden zeal who has written precious few position papers and made as few controversial decisions as possible. Basically, Bush tapped another one of his lawyer friends, much in the same way he gave the Attorney General's job to his old Texas crony, Alberto Gonzales (who may be in line for the next nomination, should the need arise). Roberts has been a legal beagle all of his professional life. He clerked for William Rehnquist back in the day, and served under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. His list of friends and supporters is impressive, spanning the Beltway spectrum. He seems like a nice enough fellow. First of all, he's sporting a very sharp haircut. Anyone who can afford a haircut that sharp, and will still go out and get one, is on the ball. And he smiles a lot. I like a Supreme Court Justice who smiles, as opposed to a stern one. The woman whom Roberts may be replacing, Sandra Day O'Connor, could go both ways. When she didn't smile, she looked a lot like George Washington. When she did, it lit up the room, black robes and all. As far as his opinions go, that's never supposed to matter when you're talking about a judge. A judge is a different kind of person altogether, the same way a saguaro cactus is in no way similar to a heather bush - but they're both a species of plant, aren't they? Like the saguaro, these prickly judges stand tall and stately, above and apart from the rest of the meandering ecological garbage out there. Sure, Roberts may have some opinions about the subject matter of cases in which he will be asked to enter a ruling. But he's a judge. He'll block that stuff out and interpret the Constitution strictly. The president said so. His opinions won't matter, and won't get underfoot - not even the deeply ingrained Catholic stuff. The other three Catholics on the Supreme Court do this all the time. And if that doesn't work, why, he would simply recuse himself from the case that was causing him such spiritual angst. He said as much in a recent interview with Senators, when asked what he would do if his religious views clashed greatly with the letter of the law in a theoretical case. That's not exactly what's supposed to happen at the Supreme Court, but it's an understandable answer. Antonin Scalia does it all the time, doesn't he? Besides, that's not going to happen. Critics complain that Roberts once penned a brief, in the early 1990s, that refused to lend credence to Roe v. Wade, saying that the law had no foundations in the text or intent of the Constitution. But look, he's a conservative. Just because he said or wrote something doesn't mean he believes it, or would stand by it later on in life. It also turns out that Roberts has been listed as a member of the Federalist Society, and was a member of their "steering committee", at least according to them. The Federalist Society is some kind of Republican lawyer's association, which apparently has many prominent people as members, although they may not know it. The White House says this doesn't matter, since there is no record of Roberts ever having paid the extravagant dues (fifty bucks) that the Federalist Society requires. About the only problem I have with Roberts is his age. He's only fifty years old. That's too young. Supreme Court Justices are given lifetime appointments. This fellow could be making decisions that will affect our grandkids. I don't want that. Think about it; will you be driving a 2005 vehicle in the year 2035, or wearing the same clothes? Not me. I won't be working on the same computer, and I damn sure won't be sporting the same haircut. As an American, I want a nominee that is practically guaranteed to be dead in ten years, fifteen at the most. If this country can't have that, then let's just scrap the whole system and form a polygarchy. Things would be so much easier that way. Paul Heller 7/26/05 << back to the archives
	All site contents © 2005, Paul F. Heller