Un-caffeinated
I, completely free of coffee products for FOUR DAYS, will attempt to explain my views on Roberts.
I'll say it bluntly: I am not worried at all about the confirmation of John G. Roberts. I believe he will be confirmed, and I believe that he will serve as a conservative, but also scholarly Chief Justice for the Supreme Court of the United States.
(and yes, the typically verbose Christie really did consider the above to be a blunt statement)
I was vehement in my support for the Democrats when they refused to confirm several of President Bush's appellate court nominations. I condemned the "nuclear option" and even drove myself to Stanford to check out their mock 24-hour filibuster. And now, the fight that had been anticipated ever since the shaky compromise is here. This is it. The Supreme Court. The CHIEF JUSTICE of the Supreme Court. And nope. I have my reservations about Roberts, but I am basically confident that he is qualified for the position and should be confirmed if the ayes have it.
In his opening statement, he used a continuing metaphor to describe judges as umpires in a baseball game. They only apply the rules, not make them. He's right. And nothing in his previous work suggests an abuse of his position or anything other than strict adherance to the rules and guidelines. Janice Rogers Brown and some of her colleagues were idealogues who willingly and knowingly ignored the law to fulfill their political goals. He isn't like that. No, I'm not sticking up for him because he'd probably be the most (only?) literate man to be appointed by President George W. Bush, but because I trust him when he says this:
Roberts' hearing couldn't come at a more opportune time for him. There's a national disaster, two vacancies on the highest court in the land, and Bush's approval rating is just sinking lower and lower and lower and... If Mr. Roberts can further support his promises during the duration of the hearings, I would not think less of any Senator (Republican or Democratic) for voting to confirm his nomination to the Supreme Court. If John G. Roberts can present his case as he would any other legal case, concisely and thoroughly, all we can do is take his word for it and hope that he is as legitimate as his claims.
I'll say it bluntly: I am not worried at all about the confirmation of John G. Roberts. I believe he will be confirmed, and I believe that he will serve as a conservative, but also scholarly Chief Justice for the Supreme Court of the United States.
(and yes, the typically verbose Christie really did consider the above to be a blunt statement)
I was vehement in my support for the Democrats when they refused to confirm several of President Bush's appellate court nominations. I condemned the "nuclear option" and even drove myself to Stanford to check out their mock 24-hour filibuster. And now, the fight that had been anticipated ever since the shaky compromise is here. This is it. The Supreme Court. The CHIEF JUSTICE of the Supreme Court. And nope. I have my reservations about Roberts, but I am basically confident that he is qualified for the position and should be confirmed if the ayes have it.
In his opening statement, he used a continuing metaphor to describe judges as umpires in a baseball game. They only apply the rules, not make them. He's right. And nothing in his previous work suggests an abuse of his position or anything other than strict adherance to the rules and guidelines. Janice Rogers Brown and some of her colleagues were idealogues who willingly and knowingly ignored the law to fulfill their political goals. He isn't like that. No, I'm not sticking up for him because he'd probably be the most (only?) literate man to be appointed by President George W. Bush, but because I trust him when he says this:
Mr. Chairman, I come before the committee with no agenda. I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes. I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench. And I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.
Roberts' hearing couldn't come at a more opportune time for him. There's a national disaster, two vacancies on the highest court in the land, and Bush's approval rating is just sinking lower and lower and lower and... If Mr. Roberts can further support his promises during the duration of the hearings, I would not think less of any Senator (Republican or Democratic) for voting to confirm his nomination to the Supreme Court. If John G. Roberts can present his case as he would any other legal case, concisely and thoroughly, all we can do is take his word for it and hope that he is as legitimate as his claims.
posted by christie at 1:32 PM
0 comments
