It's pretty clear to me, at least, that I have trouble dealing with reality.
The President has just named John Roberts, Jr., to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The response so far in my office has been: "Who?"
I have always believed... although I never really thought much about it... that the Supreme Court of the United States was the venue of the nine best judicial minds in the country... if not in the world. Yeah, I also believed that the Presidential elections should be a choice from among two or three of the best and the brightest, and that hasn't been working out for me either. Hence we have George W. Bush to appoint John Roberts.
I'm fairly confident that Judge Roberts will be confirmed by the Senate. He only has two years of actual judicial experience to examine, and his prior work history as a conservative Republican hack probably can't be used as a basis for holding up his confirmation. Couldn't the President have nominated someone from outside the Beltway? Couldn't he have nominated someone with less obvious partisan roots? Is Judge Roberts blessed with one of the... twenty?... best judicial minds in the country? It doesn't matter. He's been nominated, and there's scant basis for denying his confirmation.
I guess this morning I'm just a little disappointed that I'm so disappointed. This is simply the way that it's going to go.
2 comments:
The conversation I had with a friend on the telephone this morning pretty well followed this line of thinking, ending with a resigned, "Nothing is getting any better."
If you don't know him, why are you assuming that he isn't one of the 'best judicial minds' in the country?
In looking over blogs by 'lawyers' I have found very good remarks on Roberts as a person and as an attorney or judge.
Post a Comment