Supreme thoughts

So after much anticipation, fanfare, and off-the-mark (duh!) guesses from the not-so-entertaining pundits in the beltway, President Bush announced his nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. His choice? John Roberts. As you may already know, Roberts is a Harvard Law graduate, respected among his peers (Democrats and Republicans) as one of the smartest lawyers of his generation, and he's argued from the well of the Court 39 times- winning 64% of those cases. 2 years ago, he was confirmed to serve on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Circuit, and even wrote the decision in the now-infamous case regarding a girl who was caught eating a french fry on the DC Metro. Not much is really known about his personal opinion on many issues, which is probably why Bush chose him. All we know about are the cases he's argued for and against as a successful lawyer, and he has already said in a previous confirmation hearing that his personal opinions would not find their way into his decisions from the bench.

In conversations with friends and coworkers over the last few weeks, I said that the most I could hope for, as a relatively liberal person, was a nominee who would judge cases based on their merits and his interpretation of the Constitution. I would reluctantly be satisfied with a strict constitutionalist, a judge whose decisions are not based on social ideology and personal religious/moral/ethical beliefs. What else could I hope for, with such a president occupying the White House these days? The sad truth of the matter is that Bush is a conservative president, and just like President Clinton was able to nominate and confirm liberal judges to the Court, so should Bush have the right to nominate a conservative judge. But I draw the line at ideologues who try to legislate from the bench and force their personal beliefs down our throats. Roberts is not that type of judge.

Now of course this doesn't preclude him from going through a rigorous confirmation process. I am looking forward to the hearings to learn more about him and his views. I'd like to know how he feels about federalism and states rights and how far federal powers should go. I'd also be interested in finding out his opinion on individual privacy and personal rights as they pertain to survellience and increased scrutiny because of the terrorist threat. Of course I'm interested in his views on Roe v. Wade, but I honestly don't believe that will be overturned anytime soon. The bigger question is how he deals with abortion issues when the states are involved.

Roberts should prepare himself to answer the tough questions- there is no doubt that his term on the bench will span decades (he's only 50 years old), and the impact his vote will have on the future of this country and especially my generation. Oh, I'm sure the Democrats won't let him get off easy, even though they know Roberts' confirmation is almost a sure-fire bet. But despite this, the citizens of this country have the right to these answers before his term begins.

Here's hoping Renquist doesn't croak for 3 more years...