Sunday, September 18, 2005

Roberts, John... No file found. I tried through the second half of last week and over the weekend to come up with a few words, on the outcome of a weeks worth of Senate conformation hearings for John Roberts. For all that, all I have is a feeling like a bait and switch is taking place. I'm falling back into impressions of issues because I'm out out of my depth trying to think through them or by reason uncover the causes and effects, of the patterns of forces and power that actually shape this issue. An emotional civic consciousness. I've read all the articles I've seen on this. Well, I've read all these to the left here at least. Too Much of a Mystery - New York Times John Roberts, the progressive | csmonitor.com Senators talk politics, while Roberts focuses on law - Yahoo! News Roberts's performance in hearings leaves Democrats with 'dilemma' - Americas - International Herald Tribune Roberts Frustrates Committee Democrats AlterNet: Case Against Inheritance Tax Is Bogus AlterNet: Rights and Liberties: Roberts: Candor vs. Caution Roberts Reacts Cautiously as Senators Press Him on Abortion - New York Times 'Judges Are Not Politicians,' Roberts Says Newsview: Roberts Hearings a Warm-Up - Yahoo! News On Iran-contra, what did Roberts know? | csmonitor.com Senate Democrats Pushing for Roberts's Legal Memos - New York Times Higher Stakes for Roberts Much has been said (written), on not saying much. As much his bona fides are absent from being laid out for all to see. Assurances seem to be forthcoming from some quarters. A law professor Robert P. George writes at length about privacy in a NYT op ed The Supreme Court's Private Life - New York Times. He takes pains and much careful moderate language to make sure we know there is no innate constitutional right to privacy. He specifically mentions Griswold v. Connecticut. To understand this op-ed one must work backwards from Robert George's other recent writings. To get a stronger sense of how he feels about constitutional privacy, how the notion of privacy in Griswold was the antecedent for Roe vs Wade. Woman have 'no' right of privacy in their reproductive being Our national sin by robert george. A weblog associated with touchstone quotes George as stating that right-thinking people should feel good about Roberts because he is a 'constitutionalist" and understands what needs to be done  . It is worth noting that George is not explaining Roberts, he is explicitly telling Roberts his position. What the Administration is hoping to gain is a twofer on a half record. That's why he is being named to the court as its chief in one compact set of hearings. Roberts is what I would call a test tube nominee, grown  for the job. The relative success of this gambit is creating a future precedent in creating career paths where a lawyer can gain just enough experience to seem like a viable candidate to the US Supreme Court while leaving a work history (paper trail) that can be substantially shielded from public scrutiny. Only in advising corporate counsel positions, or turns in executive branch government could this be accomplished. Do this and you name a political hot-house flower to the bench. One of my brothers-in-law was a briefing asst. to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her confirmation hearings. Certainly his primary interest was to keep her from saying anything that would grievously antagonize anyone. Things have been heading that way for a while, but is it in the public interest to perfect it. is it in the public interest to reduce advise and consent to Stare Decisis on nothing much. All the legislature - and the american people are left with is a few minutes alone with a candidates temperament and personality. It isn't enough. It isn't really anything at all. 11:56:31 PM    comment [];trackback [];

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. 2005 Paul Bushmiller. Last update: 9/21/05; 8:12:47 PM.