Wait and see attitude
John Roberts has now been confirmed as chief justice of the Supreme Court, replacing the legal giant William Rehnquist. But it still remains to be seen whether John Roberts is really the best man to fill those legendary Constitutional shoes. Despite the partisan results of the Senate confirmation vote -- every Republican senator voted for Roberts, while the Democrats split down the middle, 23-22 -- there is significant disagreement about what this will mean in the long run.
The dissenting Dems included some of the most liberal members of Congress: Kennedy, Kerry, Feinstein, Boxer, Obama and, of course, Hillary Clinton. Thus the "good" conservatives appear to have won and the "bad" liberals have lost. But that current public perception may prove to be just smoke and mirrors in the future. Some of the conservative senators who voted for Roberts did so despite reservations, believing that the president's next nominee would be a clear conservative. Even before the vote, some astute legal observers were predicting that Roberts' replacement of Rehnquist would actually result in a more liberal slant for the Court. In his Washington Times article of September 20, Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer who once worked with Roberts at the Justice Department, offered an in-depth analysis of the fundamental differences Roberts and Rehnquist.
While Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition, and the American Center for Law and Justice were all fawning over Roberts and praising President Bush for appointing him, longtime conservative icon Howard Phillips defied the crowd and blasted Roberts for doing pro bono work for homosexual activists in the landmark 1993 Romer v. Evans case in Colorado.
The fact is that we knew little about John Roberts' judicial temperament when he was nominated. Much of what we did learn during his hearings was of no consolation. Particularly disturbing was his assertion that as a judge, he will not be guided by the moral precepts of his Roman Catholic faith. "My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role," he testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Miers is a clean slate with no paper trail and no discernable judicial philosophy because she has never been a judge. This nomination presents far more missing pieces of the puzzle compared to the Roberts nomination.
Grassroots conservatives realized the ruse immediately and were quick to express their outrage over the latest "stealth" nominee on talk radio and the hottest blog spots. Almost as immediately, the White House went into damage-control mode, assuring conservatives they had nothing to fear because Miers is not a "stealth" candidate to the president—after all, he knows her. The president even held a hastily prepared press conference in the Rose Garden to assuage conservative angst.
In his own words, the president offered, "I picked the best person I could find." With all due respect Mr. President, where were you looking? I don't have the considerable resources that the White House had in this search, but off the top of my head come the names of Edith Hollan Jones from the U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, and Janice Rogers Brown from the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. Jones, who has been on the court since 1985, could easily establish her conservative credentials. Brown, who recently proved she can handle the Senate confirmation process, has been a judge since 1994 and her life story embodies the conservative mindset for success. That may not make her a "trailblazer" to some, but her judicial record clearly trumps that of Ms. Miers.
The president seemed to bristle at the assertion that Miers is a stealth candidate or that her appointment was due to her close relationship with him, but when pressed for reasons why she should be supported, he offered only variations of this idea: She helped picked Roberts, she knows what he's looking for in a judge, and because he knows her, he can assure us that she is the kind of judge he's looking for.
The dissenting Dems included some of the most liberal members of Congress: Kennedy, Kerry, Feinstein, Boxer, Obama and, of course, Hillary Clinton. Thus the "good" conservatives appear to have won and the "bad" liberals have lost. But that current public perception may prove to be just smoke and mirrors in the future. Some of the conservative senators who voted for Roberts did so despite reservations, believing that the president's next nominee would be a clear conservative. Even before the vote, some astute legal observers were predicting that Roberts' replacement of Rehnquist would actually result in a more liberal slant for the Court. In his Washington Times article of September 20, Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer who once worked with Roberts at the Justice Department, offered an in-depth analysis of the fundamental differences Roberts and Rehnquist.
While Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition, and the American Center for Law and Justice were all fawning over Roberts and praising President Bush for appointing him, longtime conservative icon Howard Phillips defied the crowd and blasted Roberts for doing pro bono work for homosexual activists in the landmark 1993 Romer v. Evans case in Colorado.
The fact is that we knew little about John Roberts' judicial temperament when he was nominated. Much of what we did learn during his hearings was of no consolation. Particularly disturbing was his assertion that as a judge, he will not be guided by the moral precepts of his Roman Catholic faith. "My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role," he testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Miers is a clean slate with no paper trail and no discernable judicial philosophy because she has never been a judge. This nomination presents far more missing pieces of the puzzle compared to the Roberts nomination.
Grassroots conservatives realized the ruse immediately and were quick to express their outrage over the latest "stealth" nominee on talk radio and the hottest blog spots. Almost as immediately, the White House went into damage-control mode, assuring conservatives they had nothing to fear because Miers is not a "stealth" candidate to the president—after all, he knows her. The president even held a hastily prepared press conference in the Rose Garden to assuage conservative angst.
In his own words, the president offered, "I picked the best person I could find." With all due respect Mr. President, where were you looking? I don't have the considerable resources that the White House had in this search, but off the top of my head come the names of Edith Hollan Jones from the U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, and Janice Rogers Brown from the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. Jones, who has been on the court since 1985, could easily establish her conservative credentials. Brown, who recently proved she can handle the Senate confirmation process, has been a judge since 1994 and her life story embodies the conservative mindset for success. That may not make her a "trailblazer" to some, but her judicial record clearly trumps that of Ms. Miers.
The president seemed to bristle at the assertion that Miers is a stealth candidate or that her appointment was due to her close relationship with him, but when pressed for reasons why she should be supported, he offered only variations of this idea: She helped picked Roberts, she knows what he's looking for in a judge, and because he knows her, he can assure us that she is the kind of judge he's looking for.
posted by Joey Bee at 12:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home