Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka

E. J. Dionne Jr. argues in the Washington Post that Roberts should not be confirmed, or at least, Democrats shouldn’t vote for him.  His main objections to Roberts tiptoed around many of the questions asked during the hearings and that the administration did not release Robert’s writings when he was deputy solicitor general.

These are very weak arguments for voting “no” on an almost perfect candidate.  

Does Dionne really expect Roberts to say how he would rule on specific issues?  Do we really want that?  Ignore for a minute the “cases and controversies” reason why Roberts was not forthcoming on specific issues.  Imagine if he said that he would uphold Roe.  What would happen if three years later he votes to overturn Roe?  Would the ruling not count?  Would it not be respected?  Is he not permitted to change is mind?  If he does, there’s nothing anyone could do about it.

As for the withholding of some of his writings- I’m sure Dionne understands the concept of attorney- client confidentiality.  I’m not sure though that he understands how important it is, especially when it comes to the presidency.  The President needs honest, straightforward legal advice, advice he is not going to get if every deputy solicitor general is nervous that what he writes may be used against him in a future confirmation hearing.  

If a Democrat can’t vote for Roberts, then basically no Republican nominee is good enough.  

Did you see the Times' editorial? They argued Roberts shouldn't be confirmed because he hasn't met the "high standard" to protect important civil rights required of a young candidate vying of CJ . In other words, they aren't sure he agrees with them, so they'd rather Bush elect Lawrence Tribe. And this is the best paper of the land?

The fact that the Times mentions the "French Fry" cases proves how pathetic the their claims against Roberts.

And this is the best paper of the land?

I swtiched to the WSJ and never looked back.