Finally – A Reason To Oppose Roberts

I’ve been reserving comment on Roberts until I saw a politically viable reason for Democrats to oppose Roberts. From the L.A. Times, Confirmation Path May Run Through Florida: Roberts’ low-profile role as an advisor to Republicans during the 2000 presidential recount fight is likely to be closely scrutinized.
This is perfect. The Bush Crime Family is trying to pretend that this is not a political appointment and Democrats don’t know what to think, as usual. Everybody, including the American people, know this is a rank political appointment. That is exactly the way Democrats should treat it. Roberts is too political to be appointed to the Supreme Court. His resume and his involvement in the Florida recount, however limited, is sufficient reason for Democrats not to vote to confirm Roberts to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

This is sufficient reason to oppose Roberts:

As the 2000 presidential recount battle raged in Florida, a Washington lawyer named John G. Roberts Jr. traveled to Tallahassee, the state capital, to dispense legal advice.
He operated in the shadows at least some of those 37 days, never signing a legal brief and rarely making an appearance at the makeshift headquarters for George W. Bush’s legal team.
But now Roberts has been selected for the very Supreme Court that put Bush into office by settling the recount, chosen by the president to replace the swing vote in that 5-4 decision. And his work in Florida during that time is coming into focus, giving critics some ammunition to paint a respected jurist with an apparently unblemished legal career as an ideological partisan

Roberts is a political hack. He might as well have been on the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP).

2 thoughts on “Finally – A Reason To Oppose Roberts

  1. I too have been reserving judgment on Roberts. It is not at all clear to me that Roberts is as bad as you suggest.
    Yes, the 2000 SCOTUS judgment was bad. But that decision should be laid at the feat of the judges who made the decision.
    Don’t get me wrong. I am very suspicious of the circles he runs in. Ken Starr’s OIC. The 2000 recount fights.
    But, I think it is critical to keep some things in perspective. Roberts is a top-notch lawyer who happens to be a Republican. It should not be surprising that he would be asked to support Ken Starr or Bush’s recount fight. That doesn’t mean he isn’t part of the cabal. But it also isn’t proof that he is either.
    “He operated in the shadows at least some of those 37 days, never signing a legal brief and rarely making an appearance at the makeshift headquarters for George W. Bush’s legal team.”
    I find this passage rather curious. Yes, Roberts could have been operating “in the shadows” in order to keep a low profile. But why? It’s not like James Baker or Bolton felt any concerns about being involved. Nor did Ted Olsen who, like Roberts, has his eye on the Supreme Court bench.
    So maybe Roberts was in the shadows because…he just wasn’t involved that much.
    I think that if the Democrats try to play the 2000 card against Roberts, after ignoring the outcome for 5 years and giving John Bolton a pass on his activities during his confirmation hearing, they are going to look rather stupid.

  2. FINALLY a reason to oppose him?
    I suppose the blank check he wrote CHIMPY last week, allowing him to incarcerate indefinitely and then hold nothing more than a military tribunal without JUDICIAL oversight?
    When they start sweeping American protestors off the streets and locking them up in Gitmo will this decision be looked at as “another” reason to oppose Roberts?
    Or maybe, the fucking main one.
    While everyone chases their asses about Roe v Wade the real danger is that this nation’s ONLY PREEMINENT POSITION IN THE WORLD ANYMORE IS IT BOASTS THE BIGGEST PRISON POPULATION OF ANY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION.
    Roberts handed der Shrubenfueher the entire farm last week. YOU NOW REMAIN AT LIBERTY SOLELY AT CHIMPY’S WHIM.

Comments are closed.