I've been largely disinterested in the John Roberts for SCOTUS debate. He's conservative and I oppose his views on the role of women (in the home only) and his apparent belief in their relative inequality. I generally oppose his view that there is no right to privacy - that really seems to strike at the heart of my vision of what basic tenets America was founded upon. I disagree with his generally held belief that the Executive Branch carries greater strength than the judiciary, which strikes at the heart of the separate but co-equal three branches of government established by the Constitution.
But he's a conservative, that's what they stand for, and that's the type of nominee we should expect when a conservative gets to pick the SCOTUS nominee. It's not a good pick by my way of thinking, but then again I don't think Jesus would suggest assassinating world leaders, that Jesus wouldn't con some Muslims into taking out the World Trade Center because women have the right to choose what health care they receive or because lesbians have the right to hug and kiss each other, that George Bush is not the second coming of Jesus, and wouldn't really approve of cutting social benefits for tired, poor, and hungry so multi-millionaires can afford just...one...more...fancy...car. I suppose I'm really out of touch with Jesus, and my now deceased Southern Baptist preacher grandfather would be quite unhappy with that (even though he never suggested assassinating anyone, preached charity, and treated everyone equal - maybe he was out of touch, too, now that I think about it).
But this kind of crap really pisses me off (from Think Progress):
In April, Judge John Roberts “heard arguments about the Bush administration’s [Guantanamo Bay] policy as he was discussing a Supreme Court appointment in private conversations with the White House.” On July 15, “when Judge Roberts met with President Bush for the job-clinching interview, he joined a ruling in favor of the defendants, who included Mr. Bush.” The White House claims Roberts didn’t do anything wrong. Bush spokesman Steve Schmitt said “there was no conflict whatsoever.”
John Roberts knows better and we have proof. In 1986, when John Roberts was working in the White House Counsel’s Office for President Reagan, he was asked to review a mundane request by an attorney named Lester Hyman. Roberts replied: I must recuse myself from this matter, in light of pending discussions with Mr. Hyman’s firm about future employment.
So Roberts understands it’s unethical to make professional decisions that impact a prospective employer. When it came to the prospect of a nomination to the Supreme Court, Roberts simply set ethics aside.
Maybe I've just gotten fed up dealing with judges that don't give a damn about what the law is. Maybe I'm just tired of the arbitrary manner in which some state court judges adhere to the "good old boy" system of dispensing justice - one friend at a time. Maybe I'm overly idealistic in hoping that at least when a judge reaches the highest plateau of the legal profession he or she should have the highest regard for the rule of law and respect for the inherent integrity that comes with the accolade. Whatever.
But this crap shows Roberts to be nothing more than a groveling ladder-climber. I won't begrudge his ideology too much, although I will disagree with it. As I said, he's a conservative and as long as we elect intellectual neanderthals we'll get nominees that share their beliefs that women should be perpetually pregnant and earn substandard wages, opposes the extension of civil rights, and generally thinks the government should decide what's best for a woman's health. Not to mention the belief that it's okay to torture a couple brown people, because...well, they're just no Christians and they look different and their names are hard to pronounce dammit.
But nominating a guy that has so little regard for the most basic ethical trappings that accompanies the authority to sit in judgment over the foundations of our civil liberties and the rule of law? This particular nominee truly befits the pathetic moral and ethical depravity of the person that nominated him.