So President Bush has nominated CBS Evening News correspondent and sometime anchor John Roberts to the Supreme Court. How... odd.
Wait, there's a different John Roberts? And he's actually a judge? Imagine that!
Some people will inevitably complain that Bush didn't nominate a minority or a woman. Democrats should avoid that fallacy. Why? My colleague Alex points this out - reject Roberts because we want a woman, and we get Justice Coulter. Shiver.
Seriously, who is this guy? And why was the John Roberts I've heard of not nominated? I, personally, would have liked all the Court's opinions to end with "For the Supreme Court, I'm John Roberts. Good night."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Democrats would be foolish to begin complaining about his race and gender. Focus on things he could potentially change, like his views on the issues (okay, technically he could change his gender too, but you get my point).
From what little I've read about him, I'm not sure what to think. Obviously the big focus for a lot of folks is Roe v. Wade, which Roberts, in true John Kerry fashion, flip-flops on. C'mon, Judge, was it "incorrectly decided and should be overruled", or is it "the law of the land" and would you "apply that precedent"?
I think we just have to wait and see how this plays out. As it stands, I anticipate him getting confirmed with relative ease, and then we'll see how it goes.
Just stay away from french fries
Post a Comment