I was in my car when I heard that GWB had nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court. I remember the moment well. I was two bites away from finishing a chicken and bacon ranch sub from SubWay(TM), and as the radio announcer said, "George W Bush announced the nomination of John Roberts to fill the O'Conner spot in the Supreme Court today," I spilled a large globule of Chipotle southwest sauce on my shirt. I swore and then turned my car towards home. Not because I was mad at the nomination, but because I had to change my clothes and I would likely be late. I was, in fact, late for work. And I blame George W. Bush for that....OK, not really.
Since that time I have engaged in several useless conversations about the man, and after all this time I still don't know what to think about the guy. I've said it again and again. Bloggers of the liberal variety rejected him out of hand, assuming he is anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black people, and anti-whatever it is they think they stand for. They have yet to provide real evidence to support their claims. Bloggers of the conservative variety have hailed his nomination as the second coming of "values" politics, and have thus predicted the slow death of Rowe vs Wade and gay rights and civil rights and tax and spend government.
The funny thing about bloggers is that our ranks are full of hopeless idiots. Every single one of them. Even me. We rant and we rave, we kick and we scratch, and at the end of the day we accomplish very little. William Shakespeare had us in mind when he spoke of a man who “struts and frets his hour upon the stage,” for ours truly is a tale told by an idiot. It just so happens that in opposition to Shakespeare’s singular idiot there stands a multitude of hopeless morons pounding their keyboards in rage at the newest and hottest political matière du jour.
Ann Coulter said it early on and, though it pains me to do so, I must agree. The scariest thing about this guy is that we know so little about him. He has but a few months’ experience as a judge and, before that, he argued as a run of the mill lawyer for the Reagan and Bush I administrations. He has said nothing that belies his true feelings one way or the other, over the entirety of his career.
Think about the last time you had a political conversation with a friend or a co-worker. Think about how often you make an ass of yourself on your website or a friend’s page. Think about how easy it would be to discern your political stance from the few words you have either stated out loud or written in confidence and then wonder how a man who has worked in public office his entire life can get away with the impression that he is wholly impartial on all subjects.
His evasiveness in the hearings made me wonder what kind of a person he truly is. He says he believes in law and law alone. He says that he will let the facts of the case and his interpretation of the Constitution decide merit in each instance. And that is fine. What bothers me is the idea that a man who has remained reticent on nearly every important subject throughout his entire life is now expected to equate his opinion with justice.
What bothers me is that he has apparently never stood for anything in his entire life. He passes the buck in each instance, stating that he defended this client or that client and never his own ideals. In short, he apparently has no backbone. A man with no backbone and a willingness to shy from decision-making of this magnitude can be easily bought.
This man will shortly become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the