That was a very satisfying rant to read. Thakns!

I’ve worried about the scant coverage of Roberts’ background and his limited experience as a judge, too, so I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one. 😉

Still, I can’t help but feel that America deserves whatever it gets from the Bush administration. Elections have consequences; Roberts could very well be one of them.

(Incidentally, Luis, the correct title is “Chief Justice of the United States,” not Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, although that is a very common mistake.)

Good rant… but still a little misplaced, I think, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, while I think the White House should release all the documents they’re covering up, I still think that Bush is entitled to nominate who he wants. Unless the person is unqualified to take the post, his nomination should be approved.

So the first question is what would make someone unqualified to be a justice on the Supreme Court. Does that post require that someone be of the absolute highest quality? Do they have to be from the top law schools in the nation, have written fabulous opinions that’re now law in previous judicial assignments, have clerked for the Supreme Court?

Or can a more regular guy with a law degree from a second-tier or third-tier school get in, as long as he’s not a secret child pornographer? What would disqualify someone?

To be frank, I’m of the opinion that perhaps the Supreme Court NEEDS more “regular” people on it. Someone who demonstrates a keen mind but has a more common background and touch.

While it’s fair to say that we don’t have the total package available because of the held-back documents, I think that nothing has come out that shows Roberts to be unqualified to be a justice on the Court.

I despise the fact that he probably has some different political opinions than I do on things like abortion and separation of church and state… but again, Bush won the election and the right to nominate that kind of person.

So the next question, IMO, is what (if any) special things does someone need to be the Chief Justice?

Frankly, I don’t think they need much. I don’t see Chief Justice as being something that somehow requires “the best of the best of the best”. It seems to me that the primary thing that the Chief Justice needs is the ability to get along with other people, facilitate meetings, handle the administrative details, and generall make sure that the trains run on time (so to speak).

Again, here, I don’t see where Roberts is unqualified.

It would actually make a lot more sense to me if the position of “Chief” justice were something left up to the court itself to decide. Someone could be quite partisan, very divisive in their opinions, way way out on the left or right wing of the Court, and still do a good job as Chief Justice.

That, to me, is something that the Court should decide for itself. They might have someone who everyone gets along with but would do a crappy job administratively, and they wouldn’t select that person. They might have someone that everyone hates their opinions, but if that justice did a good job of having meetings and getting things done, they’d be perfect for the job.

A quick glance at the Constitution does not reveal any special qualifications for Justices, nor does it make any differentiation between the “Chief” Justice and the “Associate” Justices.

So… as much as I hate to admit it, I think that Roberts’ nomination as Chief Justice should probably be confirmed by the Senate. I don’t have a problem with a filibuster, but in my opinion it should only be used because of some radical reason- and the fact that Roberts will probably vote to overturn Roe V Wade, for example is NOT (IMO) a radical enough reason.

The Court has always had political influences on it; that’s why the system is set up the way it is. Those of us on the progressive/liberal/left side of the aisle may hate to admit it, but Bush won the 2004 election and it’s his right to nominate someone who shares his political views.

Paul
Seattle, WA

First of all, while I think the White House should release all the documents they’re covering up, I still think that Bush is entitled to nominate who he wants. Unless the person is unqualified to take the post, his nomination should be approved.Of course Bush should be allowed to make any choice he wants, this is a red herring. The real point is your second statement, that “unless the person is unqualified to take the post, his nomination should be approved.” That, I believe, is dead wrong. The constitution says that he must have the consent of the Senate (Article I, Section 2, Clause 2). Consent means agreement, and that allows for the Senate to disagree for any reason. Legally, they could reject a nominee because they don’t like his shoes, or simply out of spite; whether it’s reasonable or not, that is their power and privilege.
So the first question is what would make someone unqualified to be a justice on the Supreme Court. Does that post require that someone be of the absolute highest quality?Does Roberts really strike you as even being close to the top of the list in terms of ability? Two years as a judge? Nothing to distinguish him? No rulings or writings which make him stand out at all? By that standard, should a company hire a CEO simply because he hasn’t broken any laws and has worked in the business before?

Remember the position we’re talking about here: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. A man who will have more influence over U.S. law than any other single person alive. The chief arbiter of the Constitution of the United States. Does not this responsibility absolutely demand someone who has demonstrated more than just mere competence?
To be frank, I’m of the opinion that perhaps the Supreme Court NEEDS more “regular” people on it. Someone who demonstrates a keen mind but has a more common background and touch.This statement, I believe, demonstrates so much of what is wrong with how we decide our leaders nowadays. The old “common man” idea.

First of all, what do “regular” and “common” mean, and how is that paradigm incompatible with brilliance?

In the popular, mainstream use of the word, “common” is an artificial political word, on par with “elitism.” These are words constructed for political means to lay claim to an egalitarian alliance with the mainstream without due evidence. We are with the common man, they are elitists who think they are better than you. We’re good ol’ folk, they’re arrogant bastards.

In fact, “common” in these terms is a such a politically successful word because it is infinitely malleable. Ask anyone to define a “common” man or woman, and you will get as many definitions as there are people. In its true form, it means “someone like me,” whoever you may be. Look at Bush, he is renowned as being the ultimate “common” man. Is he? Born to extreme wealth, power, and privilege, given his life on a silver platter, granted money and leadership in business without having to prove himself–how is he “common”? Because he found Jesus? Because he’s not brilliant?

And here’s where we reach the heart of things, and something which you may not have intended to say, but which is logically implied by what you did say: that in order to be “common,” you cannot be brilliant. You seem to make a distinction between “the best of the best” and “keen,” but you clearly imply that the best of the best cannot have “a more common background and touch.” Why not? Do high intelligence or superb talent preclude commonality? The problem is that this assumption makes a confused distinction between intelligence and moral standing. Because those are really the two issues at hand. This is what gets confused. People say they’re “common” and mean “moral,” but preclude “elite” people, and then get all offended when “common” is then defined as “dumb.”

So we have to make the distinction: does “common” mean “highly intelligent” or does it mean ” moral” in that a person understands the mainstream sense of family, community, and patriotism? Even if you choose a third definition, here’s the question to answer: if “common” does not mean “unintelligent,” then does high intelligence and being the best in your field preclude the meaning of “common”?

Think about Bill Clinton: whatever you may think about his sexual misadventures, you cannot deny that he was politically brilliant and–perhaps even because of his sexual adventures, he was very “common,” but certainly had a very strong understanding of what mainstream American life was like; he had a strong “common” background and touch.

But here’s another question: how do you know Roberts has those qualities? Because he’s got a wife and kids?

I think I might blog on this, and use some of what I just wrote.
While it’s fair to say that we don’t have the total package available because of the held-back documents, I think that nothing has come out that shows Roberts to be unqualified to be a justice on the Court.And this is where I come in and say that being “not unqualified” is not equal to being “highly qualified,” which is what we should be looking for.
So the next question, IMO, is what (if any) special things does someone need to be the Chief Justice?Yeah. Just like I want for the president: someone who is the best at the job. Not someone who can just carry on without burning down the building. Rather, someone who has displayed a far greater than usual talent for understanding the law, someone who stands out as one of the best legal minds of the time.
Frankly, I don’t think they need much. I don’t see Chief Justice as being something that somehow requires “the best of the best of the best”.Why the hell not? And sorry to beat you over the head with your own words, but a year ago you railed against affirmative action because in your view it meant that we would hire people with “minimal qualifications” and it meant “lesser qualified people being promoted over more qualified people.” What happened to your admiration of merit?

Here is some more info on this character:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts

I think he is where he is because he’s their man.

LOL I think that “whoosh” sound was you blasting past my main point.

The main point is this: This isn’t a merit position. This is a *political* position. Yes, it’d be really nice if instead of making a political appointment to the Supreme Court, the President always appointed someone who was top-flight, top-notch qualified.

However, that’s not the political reality. The political reality is that the President, by virtue of *being* the President, gets to appoint whoever he darned well pleases.

And sure, it’s “advise and consent” of the Senate. Sure, the Senate can deny someone the post for whatever reason they see fit. Again, this is a political process, and just because someone is “pro-life” or “anti-gun” or not the absolute best of the best is hardly a disqualification from gaining a political post.

One need only look at, say, the current occupant of the Oval Office to see THAT proven. The monkey we have in there now is perhaps one of the least qualified guys to win that office in the past 75 years.

If the Democrats use the filibuster option, which they’re entitled by the (political) rules of the Senate to do, they’re running the risk of having those rules changed on them via the “nuclear” option. So if/when they choose to use that, it should be for a very good reason. Roberts being less-than-the-best does not really strike me as such a reason.

Does Roberts really strike you as even being close to the top of the list in terms of ability? Two years as a judge? Nothing to distinguish him? No rulings or writings which make him stand out at all? By that standard, should a company hire a CEO simply because he hasn’t broken any laws and has worked in the business before?

Remember the position we’re talking about here: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. A man who will have more influence over U.S. law than any other single person alive. The chief arbiter of the Constitution of the United States. Does not this responsibility absolutely demand someone who has demonstrated more than just mere competence?

Absolutely not. Of course not. But… the job title of “President Of The United States” is perhaps even MORE important. And we leave deciding that office up to a political process that leads us to frequently get someone in there who’s quite a bit less than the best-qualified person.

Likewise, the position of Supreme Court Justice (and again, I don’t see where/how the Chief Justice holds any significant amount more power than the Associates; where the rubber meets the road, it’s voting on the cases before them that matters, and one vote is one vote) is one that is decided through a political process.

In my state, we elect our judges. We certainly are not getting the absolute finest, top-flight legal minds in Washington. But that’s how the system is set up; it’s what we are stuck working with.

Likewise, the system for Supreme Court is what it is. We’re stuck with it. And on that system, the Democrats are going to have a nearly impossible time filibustering or torpedoing Roberts’ nomination based on “he’s not the best guy we could get”.

I suspect we agree on this issue more than we might think, Luis. I want and would like to have the best guy possible, the finest legal mind.

However, the Constitution makes no such demand, and neither does the way the process is set up.

Under the current process, I think someone has to be really *unqualified* to be denied, particularly when the same party claims a majority of the Senate and the White House.

I’m not happy about it, but I think it’s inevitable. His nomination to replace O’Connor was almost certainly going to pass; since I don’t really see much distinction between “Chief Justice” and “Associate Justice”, I don’t think that the Chief needs a higher standard.

As far as some of the rest of your comments, I’ll just say that you’re using *your* definition and understanding of what “common” means, not necessarily mine. It does not preclude brilliance; nor does it rule out the elite. And Bush is not a “common” guy; he merely acts it, and the only reason he pulls it off is because he’s so stupid.

What’s more, your entire comment-on-my-comment has, as a thrust, the idea that the position absolutely requires a top-notch, brilliant, best-of-the-best type of justice. I don’t agree with that; I think it SHOULD require that, but in the end it’s a political post and we should just be happy if we don’t get someone as underqualified for the job as, say, Bush is for his.

Paul
Seattle, WA

LOL I think that “whoosh” sound was you blasting past my main point. :)No, not blasting past your main point. Disagreeing with it.
The main point is this: This isn’t a merit position. This is a *political* position. Yes, it’d be really nice if instead of making a political appointment to the Supreme Court, the President always appointed someone who was top-flight, top-notch qualified.I guess you’re simply being cynical here, and I can understand that. But I simply can’t agree with it. I can’t agree to the idea of top government positions being political only, with not even the least sop to putting talented people in charge. Yes, political appointments have arrived at their zenith under Bush, but that doesn’t mean that it’s the way it should be or even that we should accept it as a reality. It’s massively irresponsible.

Yes, Bush is the ultimate example of a political choice as opposed to a talented one. But there is one important distinction there: Bush was elected. But a SC justice is not. Major difference. Yes, the American people should choose talented presidents instead of political ones–and we’re paying the price for that folly with our dearest blood. But appointments are easier to make on the basis of talent because it’s a lot fewer people making the choice, and you face less opposition if your choice is completely based upon merit. Appointments should never be political unless the position doesn’t matter. Like ambassador to countries like Djibouti or Andorra. But Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? To make that a political appointment is stupid, irresponsible and betrays the American people.

Another example: FEMA. The guy who heads it now, Michael Brown, is such a political appointment. The guy who Bush first chose, Joe Allbaugh, was a political flack for Bush, a campaign worker, who got his reward with the directorship of FEMA. No experience in managing natural disasters. When he quit, he gave the job to Brown, on the basis that he was his college roommate and a Bush supporter! Brown was a lawyer for an Arabian horse association, and got fired from his job. He also had no talent for disaster control.

And now, perhaps thousands of people are dead because Brown royally screwed up. This is what happens when you put political hacks in key government positions.

Is it the reality of the day? Perhaps. Is it something we should accept? Never.

Bush may have the power to put “whoever he darned well pleases” into whatever spot he wants, but that doesn’t mean that I or anyone else can’t blast him for it. That way of doing thing is grossly irresponsible and frankly unacceptable. And it’s about damned time we started demanding better, as citizens of the country, whose lives are being massively affected by these stupid choices of unqualified hacks.