The selection of John G. Roberts for the Supreme Court begs for a few points to be made.
George W. Bush promised to choose a certain kind of judge. To flesh out this example, he pointed to current Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. This promise was made in 2000, and Bush was elected. In 2004, the promise was made once again. Again, Bush was elected. Now he has fulfilled that promise. And he is being assailed for it.
Is Roberts' judicial philosophy more extreme than that of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer? Certainly not (let's set aside for another day which judicial philosophy is more in line with the Constitution). Both Ginsberg and Breyer sailed to confirmation. At this very moment, a multimillion dollar advertising war is being launched to bring Roberts down. Can we just agree that the rules have changed?
Roberts will not face a successful Senate fillibuster. Certainly the agreement made by the Gang of 14, where no nomination would be blocked absent "extraordinary circumstances," would force a cloture vote.
Elections have consequences. This is one of them.
Comments