Bush nominates John Roberts as Chief Justice of SCOTUS. It's surprising for a couple of reasons - not least because Antonin Scalia, the apparent frontrunner, has been on the court for ages and has a much more reliable record of pro-conservative judgments.
But if Bush trusts Roberts completely enough to want him in the top job even without any experience on the court, that'll only make the Democrats dig even harder to make sure of his credentials. And judging from some of the material that's popped up so far, there may be ample reason for concern if a lot of prior documents are combed more thoroughly. Why would Bush be willing to call that much more attention to Roberts' track record?
It could be that the nomination is a means of calling public (or at least pundit) attention away from Katrina's aftermath; a simple one-level promotion for Scalia would have been much less interesting. So far, so good on that front, as the nomination is now the top story on the New York Times and Washington Post websites.
But there's a simple counterattack from the Dems' standpoint as well: that just like the current heads of FEMA and DHS, this is another example of Bush promoting somebody based on ideology rather than qualification related to the task at hand, with potential to do damage to ordinary Americans for several decades. There's valid reason for the comparison in some of Roberts' known writings, as well as the fact that there are 7 other justices who are plainly more qualified in the SCOTUS setting, as well as countless others with more experience (both judicial and administrative) on lower courts. The main question now is whether the Dems have the guts to make the connection.
No comments:
Post a Comment