Why I'm (Still, Provisionally) Pro-John Roberts
Still collecting info, of course, but thus far I'm still pro-Roberts. The accounts I've read so far, including the one in Newsweek (You know, I never read Newsweek. It's pretty damn fluffy.) indicate that he's very smart, open minded and non-"ideological" (in the weird sense that word now has). He's said to be more of a "pragmatist" than a "movement conservative," more "bottom-up" than "top-down."
Look, we're going to get a conservative. There's no doubt about that. So the only questions seem to be (a) will we get a dumb one like Thomas, or a smart one (like Roberts?)? and (b) will we get a nasty ideological one like Scalia or will we get an actual reasoner (like Roberts?)?
Given the information I've seen, this seems clear: it would not be smart for the Dems to make a stink about Roberts. He's well within specs and he's the best they are going to get. And he's going to be confirmed. Wasting massive political capital fighting a doomed battle against a nominee who is at worst o.k. is idiocy--especially when that capital could be used on other battles that are winnable. And, more importantly: trying to shoot down a good nominee is bad in itself.
For those worried about Roe: again, I think Roberts may be as good as we're going to get on that score. His views about stare decisis seem to incline him against overturning the decision.
Matt_C's point, that Roberts was on the Bush team that attempted to steal the 2000 election, does give me pause. I suppose that one could be a foot soldier in that fight and still be a good person...but it is something of a stretch. More thinking required.
On the other hand, the Dems are clearly right that they should get to see the maximum amount of information allowed by law. This administration is pathologically secretive, so I imagine that this could turn out to be the sticking point. It would be a real tragedy if that turns out to be true: Bush makes a(n uncharacteristically) good decision, but then blows it by withholding relevant information from the Senate. If he doesn't--if he tops off this good nomination with a sudden recognition that Democracies function best with the light on--then he'll have gone up several notches in my estimation, for what that's worth.
Still collecting info, of course, but thus far I'm still pro-Roberts. The accounts I've read so far, including the one in Newsweek (You know, I never read Newsweek. It's pretty damn fluffy.) indicate that he's very smart, open minded and non-"ideological" (in the weird sense that word now has). He's said to be more of a "pragmatist" than a "movement conservative," more "bottom-up" than "top-down."
Look, we're going to get a conservative. There's no doubt about that. So the only questions seem to be (a) will we get a dumb one like Thomas, or a smart one (like Roberts?)? and (b) will we get a nasty ideological one like Scalia or will we get an actual reasoner (like Roberts?)?
Given the information I've seen, this seems clear: it would not be smart for the Dems to make a stink about Roberts. He's well within specs and he's the best they are going to get. And he's going to be confirmed. Wasting massive political capital fighting a doomed battle against a nominee who is at worst o.k. is idiocy--especially when that capital could be used on other battles that are winnable. And, more importantly: trying to shoot down a good nominee is bad in itself.
For those worried about Roe: again, I think Roberts may be as good as we're going to get on that score. His views about stare decisis seem to incline him against overturning the decision.
Matt_C's point, that Roberts was on the Bush team that attempted to steal the 2000 election, does give me pause. I suppose that one could be a foot soldier in that fight and still be a good person...but it is something of a stretch. More thinking required.
On the other hand, the Dems are clearly right that they should get to see the maximum amount of information allowed by law. This administration is pathologically secretive, so I imagine that this could turn out to be the sticking point. It would be a real tragedy if that turns out to be true: Bush makes a(n uncharacteristically) good decision, but then blows it by withholding relevant information from the Senate. If he doesn't--if he tops off this good nomination with a sudden recognition that Democracies function best with the light on--then he'll have gone up several notches in my estimation, for what that's worth.
posted by Winston Smith at
6:52 AM
3 Comments:
if [Bush] tops off this good nomination with a sudden recognition that Democracies function best with the light on
Why even entertain this fantasy? After all the lies, smears, and secrets, why not at least wait for a first example of good will toward the open society? Doesn't it meet the proverbial definition of insanity (trying again and again the same thing expecting a different outcome) to plead for a truly responsive document release? I mean, it never happened for John Bolton. Why would the White House start with John Roberts?
WS, you're smart and your heart's in the right place. But you're wishy-washy. Why won't you follow your mind where it takes you? Isn't that what philosophy is about? No one's going to push hemlock on you! Why do you still pretend that Duhbya might give a damn about something so quaint as constitutional democracy? The evidence is in; he doesn't.
Arthur Silber's argument against Roberts is better--that he's fundamentally against habeas corpus and for an imperial executive branch. Of course you're right that the Democrats in the Senate cannot defeat this nomination. That's not really much of a reason to simply roll over and pretend he's not dangerous to the constitution. Words are reasonably cheap. The current Democrat party strategy of just being Republican lite really isn't working too well. As Buzzflash points out today, Frist has possibly co-oped the highly intelligent and public favored policy of allowing stem cell research. This should have been a Democratic issue. --Beel
Just not sure, LL. Still just not sure...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home