The dilemma is the nomination of John Roberts to sit as Chief Justice of the United States. Despite the fact that my father considers me a Trotskyite, I tend to veer well toward the center on the question of nominees to the federal bench. It has long been my view that the president, by virtue of winning the election, gets a fairly free hand in appointing members of the federal bench.
What I have always asked for is competence. That is where we blew it on Clarence Thomas. We became so involved in misguided affections and dirty movies and pubic hairs on Coke cans that we forgot to even look at the grotesquely obvious fact that this man had no business being named to the Supreme Court.
Fast forward to John Roberts. OK, it is quite arguable whether or not Bush "won" the election and whether that deference is still due, but yet--John Roberts looks like the ultimate "qualified" candidate at first glance. He was an editor of the Harvard Law Review (I was an editor of the law review, but somehow, Champaign just doesn't have the same panache as Cambridge) and unlike Justice Affirmative Action Thomas, he had a real legal career.
My thinking though has changed. It has changed from the willingness of this president to use judicial appointments as a sledgehammer to implement a radical agenda. It has changed as federal appeals courts restrict the protection of the constitution to those embraced by the president. It has changed because the powers that be have no use for our constitution.
The charge is yours, Senators. Do what the constitution charges you to do. Advise, yes, and only if appropriate, give your consent!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
of you have sat, and perhaps thought, with us!
No comments:
Post a Comment